User:Beckhamlee/sandbox
- Peer Review**
1) Lithium air battery is really good topic for the material science. To get more related information, lithium-ion battery site would be linked to compare those two batteries. In addition, redox reaction is also helpful to understand how battery works. 2) General summary shows that why scientists get interested that topic, types and advantages of Li-air batteries, compare to traditional gasoline engine, limitation of the study and future works. These summary looks good, but if they compare Li-air battery to the other type batteries or engines, it would be better. 3) It is confused about the units of energy density. kWh/g or kWh/kg is used in this page, but as the numbers shows the powers to wheel in motors, HP/g or HP/kg would be more familiar to reader to understand how it is strong or work longer than traditional ones. Also, if they explain more about the usages or principles of general batteries it would be better page. 4) Outline is well ordered. It has whatever it should be had, especially, challenges and limitations of Li-air battery. But, as the authoors said about the zinc at the background, they should mention about why researchers are focusing on Li instead Zn. 5) The pictures of each designs of Li-air batteries or the figures for principles of each designs must be added to make reader umderstand easier. 6) Most of the references were publised after 2008. 7) Authors use easy words to describe Li-air battery.
- peer review**
1) I cannot see any title for this page, but, I think it should be "Carbon Nanotube as Supported Catalyst". Also, I think the contents and wiki page is logically well organized. (What it is -> preparation -> application)
2) General Public Summary - This section does not need the title as "General Public Summary". I think it is written at the appropriate level, because this section is easy to read and understand. In addition, from this section, I can get an idea what the topic is. Also, the explanation of catalysts, supported catalysts can help me understand CNT supported catalysts easier.
3) Background - I think, it will be better if supported catalysts and catalysts are explained more detail. I know that it is explained in general public summary section, however, I think it needs little bit more detail in this section again. Also, It needs to be explained more about "Why CNT supported catalysts is important?". In this section, there is just listed the properties or usages of supported catalyst and am example(alumina), but does not mention about the importance of it. However, the explanation of difference between support and promoter helps me understand one of the concept of catalyst. In addition, the information of past (previous studies), traditional carbon materials as supports section, is good to give an idea about carbon supported catalysts to readers. Also ant third paragraph, "Berkman et al, 1940" should be corrected. It is not the right way to mark as references.
4) Carbon nanotubes as supports - for the 'Properties' section, it is just list of its properties and advantages. I think in this section, it will be better if authors mention about how those properties are related the applicaion more detail. For 'Preparation of carbon nanotube' section, it looks good because it shows the limitation of recent research and the future work. However, I think this section should be moved to next section, Preparations section. For 'Characterization' section, authors just list the methods for characterization, but I think if little bit more details added, it helps reader understand easier than now.
5) Preparations - It is good to make two different ways to prepare CNT. However, I think, authors shold be write the molecule carefully, such as, not MnO2, but MnO2. Also, at the first sentence, it said "In order to get a CNTs supported catalyst, the first thing is to load the catalytic materials onto CNTs" then, what is the next step? Or is that the first and last step for the preparation?
6) Applications - It is mentiones that general usages, limitation and future work. These are good for readers to understand what is going on in CNTs and CNT supported catalysts. But the detailed applications(subsections under this section) are little bit confusing. I cannot get the relation between the properties and advantages of CNT supported catalysts and metal catalysts. If there CNT is not supporting those metal catalysts, the reaction rate is relative real smaller than using CNT supported catalysts? I think comparing those data will be better to make reader understand why CNT supported catalysts are important.
7) References - It should have same form. Some of them have same form, but others are not. Also, the journal name and volume number should be in 'italic' and publised year should be 'bold' if authors want to follow ACS reference format. Also, some references cited twice, such as 17 and 20 are same reference, it should be fixed.
8) Figures - figure 1 and 3 are missing. Also, figure 2 is unclear and hard to read the numbers in the table. I recommend that for the prepartion section, the figure of CNT and catalytic materials on CNT will be helpful for readerse to understand. Also, as the authors read lots of papers (have lots of references list), I do not thinks they miss any important papers.
9) Overall - It iw well written in easy word. However, in some sections, it need to be more detailed as I mentioned above. Also, missing figures (1 and 3) shold be fixed and authors should make figure 2 more clear. the molecule shold be written in correct way to look good and prevent confusing.
10) list of related sites
rate reaction rate
names : alumina, carbon, silica, diamond, sulfide, halides, amides and so on
carbon nanotube : better if it linked eariler
polyacrylate : acrylate polymer
aupported catalyst : catalyst support
High-resolution transmission electron microscopy
beckhamlee (talk) 17:34, Dec 1, 2011 (UTC)