	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 5 January 2015 by reviewer EoRdE6 (talk · contribs).

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

KA Peer Review

Summary

First: Describes a method of producing graphite oxide developed by William S. Hummers. The author describes a history of the method and its advantages over the previous methods. He describes the chemical construction used in the method and

Second: An extension to the article on Graphite Oxide. The author adds a brief enhanced description for the article, followed by a section on modern variations.

Major Points

First: In the introduction I feel the history lesson could be streamlined. There are three questions you should seek to answer as concisely as possible: 1. Where and why was this method invented? 2. What are its unique characteristics? 3. How did these characteristics make it an advancement over previous methods?

The article could use a section about current uses or famous uses of Hummers' method, for what and by who.

As somebody who is not a chemical engineer, I can't help but finish the article and think "so what?".

I'd also watch out for neutral point of view. I know it sounds weird for an article of this nature, but when you're talking about how much better it is than similar methods you should definitely cite the factual differences, otherwise it seems as though you're just praising it to praise it. Are there any drawbacks? Cost, maybe?

Second: I like the section that is being added added, however I feel that it ends up saying just as much if not more about the Hummers method than it does about Graphite Oxide specifically. I'd suggest adding a similar section to the Hummers method article, containing information such as "Other groups have been focused on making improvements to the Hummers' method to make it more efficient and environmentally friendly. On such process is eliminating the use of NaNO3 from the process."

Minor Points

If his last name is Hummers, shouldn't it be Hummers' method rather than Hummer's method?

When the subject of an article is first mentioned, it should be bold by Wiki guidelines.

I feel like the article is under-linked. There should be some more interwiki links to important concepts.

Things like specific measurements should be cited.

and hydrogen where the there is a ratio typo.

"On such process is eliminating the use of NaNO3 from the process." Sentence doesn't make sense.

I know it's hard with such a specific topic, but try to find more sources. Good luck!

Peer review by David Abreu

Overall I think it's great that you are filling in a gap that seems self-titled and important in the scientific community! Graphite oxide mentions Hummers method so many times, I'm surprised there wasn't a page made for it already. It also answers a simple question I had right off the bat - How exactly do you spell "Hummers method".. Hummer's, Hummers'? Well the Graphite Oxide page repeatedly spells it as "Hummers method", so I recommend you choose that. Alternatively, you should maintain the same usage of the term, as you use both "Hummer's" and "Hummers'" in both the method and chemical equation sections.

It is very important that you start with a clear description as your introduction to Hummers method. Right now you have the text displaying under the table of contents, where it should have a blurb above that!

[[File:.png|175px|thumb|right|] Hummer's Method Your .png is currently not linking to anything. Whether or not you have a picture is irrelevant, you should make sure that garbled code is not there.

Your submission is very understandable, and scientific in nature. If you wish to compare it to another method check out Laplace's method.

Hyper-links, hyper-links, hyper-links!

I made a heading for this to emphasize the point. Kyle also mentioned it. Don't forget!

There are several examples of things that really should be hyper-linked especially the first time they are mentioned, including the first mention of graphite oxide described in my first paragraph, among them are the following:

Every single element the first time they are mentioned. Using graphite oxide as an example to emulate, they even describe the element's composition when mentioning them sometimes! Maybe that's not crucial, but sulfuric acid, sodium nitrate and the others should be linked.

The National Lead Company,

Wikipedia nit pickyness

You mention N2O4 and NO2 in your chemical equations and efficiency section without describing, or having defined those element compositions. Good practice is to have them mentioned prior to simplifying them in a sentence.

"efficient method of producing graphite oxide." could benefit from a link to graphite oxide, as that's the first time it is mentioned. Abrooski (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]