Talk:Negative air ions
Review
[edit]This article offers a thorough introduction to NAIs, covering everything from their historical discovery to modern applications. The content is rich and well-organized, making it an excellent piece of popular science writing.
Strengths:
Historical Overview: Provides a history of NAI discovery and research, helping readers understand its development. Empirical Data: Cites numerous scientific studies, adding to the article's credibility. Practical Examples: Clearly explains the applications of NAIs in air purification and health promotion, making it highly practical. Suggestions for Improvement:
Language Style: The language is somewhat academic and could be adjusted to a more reader-friendly style. Latest Developments: Including the latest research developments and application examples would make the content more cutting-edge. JEREMY1117 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Good job!
[edit]This article provides a comprehensive introduction to negative air ions (NAIs), covering their definition, history, generation mechanisms, types, production methods, effects, detection and evaluation methods, and main influencing factors. The content is detailed and well-organized.
Strengths:
Comprehensive Information: The article thoroughly covers various aspects of NAIs, from basic definitions to practical applications. Scientific Rigor: It cites extensive research and historical records, enhancing the article's credibility. Practical Value: It explains the specific roles of NAIs in air purification and health promotion, providing methods for detection and evaluation. Suggestions for Improvement:
Simplify Language: Some sections use complex terminology, which could be simplified for non-specialist readers. Visual Aids: Adding illustrations or charts could help readers understand complex concepts and mechanisms more intuitively. AzzurroLan (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Article review
[edit]I think this article covers a very interesting topic, but it is a bit difficult to follow. I did not quite understand the "Generation mechanisms" and the "Generation method" section, maybe they can be merged together to let the reader better understand the concept.
I added wikilinks throughout the entire page, since they were completely missing. Having them is particularly helpful for non-domain expert to understand the concepts.
I reorganized the "See also" section with links in alphabetical order, as indicated by the course tutors.
I also believe that the first image is not really meaningful to the covered topic and it is not understandable foreign users. Beatrice Branchini (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Observations and suggestions for improvements
[edit]The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following an expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in July 2024.
In the introductory of the article (the second sentence), there is a “theory” (or a “definition”, perhaps?) of NAIs by the Joint Atmospheric Commission of the International Union of Geophysics and Geodesy, but there is no reference for this statement. Within the same sentence, among the examples of NAIs, the species “CO4(H2O)2” seems to be wrong for two reasons: this species is electrically neutral (there is no negative charge), and CO4 is unlikely to exists according to the common rules of chemical valence (even with a negative charge). Also within the introduction, the term “more electrophilic” is used in an improper way. The article that is linked at this point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophile) is clearly about a different chemical property. I believe that the correct terminology would be “higher electron affinity” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity). Clicking of the title of the article in ref. [1], the reader is re-directed to a different reference. Please check. The “history” section of the article lacks references. In the second sentence (“At the end of the 19th century, German physicist Dr. Philip Leonard...”) contains the link to a Wikipedia article on “Philip Leonard Gibbard (born 1949 in Chiswick, London)...”. Within the same section, there is a very abrupt jump from 1932 (no reference) to 2020 (ref. [4]). It is hard to believe that this is a balanced and objective description of the evolution of a scientific field. The section of “Generation mechanisms” contains the sentences: “Air molecules are composed of atoms, which are made up of nuclei and electrons... When neutral molecules or atoms in the air capture the free electrons that escape, they become negative air ions.[5]” This is very common knowledge for anyone who has had a slight exposure to chemistry (high school level). Any general chemistry textbook would be appropriate as reference here. Instead, ref.[5] discusses a much more specific formation mechanism, that is not explained within the Wikipedia article. In the following paragraph, it is written: “Most of the NAIs discussed in current research refer to small negatively charged air ions.[6]”. What is the “current research”? This looks like a sentence that has been simply cut and pasted from elsewhere (not from ref.[6]). The section on “Monopole coefficient (q)” has a single reference (too little for Wikipedia standards). Ref.[19] is actually about “A Numerical Determination of the Absorption Coefficient of the Negative Hydrogen Ion", which has very little to do with the contents of the section... It is not necessary to read further, to convince oneself that this article is very poor, to the point that it is probably a disservice to Wikipedia.