User talk:Cheerios1028
| This user is a student editor in The_University_of_British_Columbia/CHEM_300_(Fall_2023) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Cheerios1028, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Lead: Lead is very similar to previous one, but shorter! I think it was a good choice to break the previous lead into two sections because the original article had more information in the lead than perhaps necessary. I do wonder why they took out the references in the lead – it might be worth it to add citations if they can find anything!
Content: I like how they added a mechanism section! It helps visualize the reaction when before it was presented in paragraph form.
Tone and balance: Tone is good! Neutral additions that do not seem biased towards either side
Sources and references: More sources would likely be helpful, as well as more papers about this experiment being conducted. Also, it looks like they removed the sources from the lead – it might be a good idea to add some into the lead as well, especially articles from peer-reviewed journals!. All internal links are working as well.
Images and media: No new images are added, but original images on the website look good so I'm not sure it's necessary to add more!
Overall impressions: I really enjoy how they broke down the mechanism! I think more could possibly be added to the article body to explain why this reaction is conducted, as well as more sources to discuss why this reaction occurs. Chmstr (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
PEER REVIEW 2
[edit]I like how concise and clear the lead is. I was confused by the title, but the first line of the page clarifies it really well. I appreciate how the article body ties in the chemistry with the experiment rather than focusing too much on the theatrics and usage of it. The step by step mechanism is well done, but might benefit from a visual aid as support. This would draw the eye to the mechanism and make it even more captivating for the readers.
The structure was clear, but more could be included in the article body to increase the coverage and scope of how the experiment was first discovered and brought into the classroom. I found myself curious about how it came to be, so it might be worth including briefly. The sources are reliable and relevant, but a bit outdated. I would suggest looking into the current usage of the experiment or other details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paoof (talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)