Talk:Scavenger resin

Untitled

The Scavenger Resin article is well focused and to the point. I found this piece to be very informative without a lot of clutter that usually would confuse readers, especially on such a complex subject – so, great job! I would suggest including a picture to add to the overall page. Also, expanding on the advantages and disadvantages that the Scavenger Resin is defined by. Otherwise, the information is straight-forward and professional with an unbiased approach. Skhussey (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this page is looking great. The grammar and composition is mostly perfect, with only a few exceptions. As far as the content, I'm afraid I can't comment; I know almost nothing of chemistry, so I'll just say that the content "seems" legitimate. Great Reference, See Also, and External Links sections. You could have catalogued this page under some Categories, however. Also, using more than three sources in the References might have made a large impact on the credibility of the information. There is some unnecessary space underneath the Applications section, and the Advantages and Disadvantages could certainly use real bullets rather than hyphens (just replace with * ). These lists are also worded without context; either introduce the list with a sentence like "There are many advantages to blah blah blah, such as:" or change each bullet to a fullly grammatical standalone sentence. Reference 7 is a sentence fragment. The sentence "These polymer beads can be describe most often in two ways, lightly crosslinked and highly crosslinked." has an awkward verb and could use a colon or rewording to something like "These polymer beads can often be described either as lightly or highly crosslinked." The link to "Resin" in the intro paragraph should be in the parenthesis, where the word first shows up, and the link should not go to a disambiguation page. These are all just little nuances and in no way related to the topic of the article; It's obvious that you put a lot of effort into researching the subject. In summary: good job! Igomes (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great job guys!

The page looks very professional and informative; although for someone with no prior knowledge of the subject, understanding the material can be a little difficult on the first pass through. But, as this is a difficult concept to explain, that's to be expected. I thought the section on commercial use was particularly interesting, as I did not know that scavenger resins were used in the process of water filtration.

All of your references and External links also seem to be very well managed and relevant.

Joellane (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hey! Great job on this page!

overall, this page looks very professional and neatly laid out. Although I don't have much prior knowledge in chemistry, it was very interesting to read and have better understanding. All of the references seems relevant and reliable. Also, all the external links works great and appropriate. I feel that article is written in unbiased format. For the final version, try to add little bit of more information on crosslink sections and commercial use section. Providing an example for each of those section would be great. It looks like you all out lot of effort on researching and constructing this site. Good job! I really like this site.

JongKim (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, This page is great and very professionally done! In general it met the Wikipedia guidelines of being well-written, well-structured, and, judging from the types of references cited, well-researched. It was also important that for this topic, a science-related topic that can be applied in some ways to communities, that you were neutral. Researchers who are considering using scavenger resins would find that helpful. It’s great that you include so many in-links because there are a lot terms that are unfamiliar to the average reader. If readers were to sit down and try to use your page alone to figure out what a scavenger resin does, they would probably be able to because of the amount of in-links and external links provided. I have one suggestion that might make it a little bit more reader-friendly. If you briefly mention the commercial uses of a scavenger resin in the introduction, you will probably be able to better put this in context for a reader who has never come across the term. You said that these involve reactions, but I couldn’t picture where these reactions were taking place— I didn’t know if they took place in an animal’s body or if they were mostly produced in a lab. Overall, the page looks great! Lmontini (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

Nice page. I will echo the users before me in saying that the page is well-written, very scholarly and supported with legitimate research. The topic is organized efficiently and easy to read (short of the technical wording which I have no idea about for the most part ;) ). The article follows Wikipedia's style guidelines in terms of layout and design which makes it that much easier to read. I would suggest that the external links be included in the citations at the bottom. You can still cite the articles while providing the hyperlinks to the respective works within the cited section without placing the links in a separate section. You can find that on the citing sources page on here.
Hperic (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I liked that the page addressed the applications to why this information is helpful. Also you provided great external links for support of the topic. The page is professionally laid out, and well organized. As many above me have pointed out, I have no knowledge in chemistry so it was difficult for me to understand the content, but the page is well laid out and provides great information. Great work. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpetracc (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)