User talk:CoolChemist
| This user is a student editor in The_University_of_British_Columbia/CHEM_300_(Jan-April) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, CoolChemist, 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) 15:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
peer review finished
[edit]Hi CoolChemist! I am Ray1590 and I finished the peer-review of your initial draft.
Lead
This is a clear and concise lead. in the original text of the exercise, Lead has concisely explained that the next section will cover the different sub-disciplines of chemistry. My peer adjusted the link to the reference in the lead, switching from the original old version of the link to the new one. It is more convenient for readers to do research.
Content & tone and balance
My peers don't add a lot of content, but it's all related to the chemistry sub-discipline, and the content consults reliable, up-to-date sources of information. The sentences are concise and neutral, and nothing is misleading. In organic chemistry, peer added an introduction to functional groups, making the article easier to understand.
source and reference
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Although the third and fourth references do not have a year, the sources are from the American Chemical Society and the quoted text is already factual, so the sources used by My peer are reliable and more up-to-date. But there are a few major chemistry sub-disciplines that don't have references, such as biochemistry and physical chemistry. maybe peer could do some research and add some references to improve the reliability of the text.
organization
In contrast to the original post, my peer has done a good job of organizing it. There are no grammatical errors in the sentences and the organization of the different sub-disciplines is made easier to understand by the inclusion of pictures.
image and media
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? My peers add images that are relevant and well-captioned to the chemistry sub-discipline. It would be nice to place the images on the corresponding sub-discipline, for example, moving the images of organometallic species to the inorganic section instead of next to nuclear chemistry would make it easier for readers to do a graphic comparison, same to the image of 4-hydroxybutanal. Also, peer has included a photo of several great theorists in the section on theoretical chemistry. Although peer doesn't really know much about theoretical chemistry or quantum chemistry, some text could be included about the history behind this group photo.
Overall impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article？ Yes. The original article simply listed and described the different chemical sub-disciplines with no pictures and very little reference. My Peer improved the reliability of the article by adding pictures and adding text with references.
What are the strengths of the content added? My peer's newly added content with references makes the sentence more reliable.Ray1590 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)