Talk:Organic electronics

Peer Reviewer #1

Overall, this wikipedia page is a success. However, there needs to be more easily accessible resources as the citations and wording choice needs to be carefully used. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal of science.

Content

There is an abundance of information that properly explores the area of OLEDs, semiconductors and various other areas. There is honestly not much work needed to be done in my opinion on adding information. The only thing I would suggest is to watch your wording. A good deal of the information is worded in such a way that it would suitable for publication in a scientific journal (ie. "reported a novel..."). Remember, this is a wikipedia page. Try to make your word choice closer to explanations that you would expect in an encyclopedia.

Figures

Exceptional use of figures to illustrate your points and compliment your explanations. I do not have any problems with your choice in your figures and cannot really think of any additional figures that might benefit your page. In this area, I think you've definitely succeeded.

References

Almost all of your references are coming from scientific journals. This may be a short coming of having to explain some very complicated concepts, but you need to use resources that are easily accessible to the average person. For some of the more basic points, facts and historical events/synthetic achievements, try and find sources that are simply web pages or other encyclopedias. Having a majority of citations as journals is not good. However, your use of references are still very good. Everything that needs a citation has one. You just need to try and replace some of them with more easily accessible ones.

Leviathan120 (talk)

Peer Review #2

Your page provide much more unique and update information about organic electronics compared with the existing one. The introduction part in quiet understandable for the nonprofessional people but there are some grammar mistakes for the definition: Organic electronics is a field of material science concerning small molecules or polymers that has electrical property, or small molecules or polymers that shows conductivity, where “has” and “shows” probably should be corrected to be “have” and “show”. The same kind of the mistakes also appear in other parts. Additionally, it will be better if you can rewrite the sentence of “ Besides, people also …” in your introduction part since I did not find any parallel relations between this sentence and the first sentence and people deservedly take your second sentence as a part of the definition if you use “besides” but apparently it is not. Other than these, your introduction does present a general picture of the organic electronics. The content part of your page is pretty informative and well organized. The history is very comprehensive. All sections have a justified length. Your job to link the important terms/concepts to the respective Wikipedia pages makes your article very easily to read for non-experts. At the same time, I noticed you persistently do this work for most of the terms/concepts, but some terms/concepts such as Ching W. Tang, OLED, film which also should be linked as their first appearance. Mover over, some concepts, for instance, poly(p-phenylene vinylene), condensation can be linked to their Wikipedia page, respectively. For some terms that have no existing Wikipedia pages such as Poly(3-alkythiophenes) and Br6A, it will be a good idea if you can provide any external resources to demonstrate them. Your highlighted examples are appropriate and help your sketch of the whole picture very well. Your original pictures and figures are very informative and of high quality. Your Chemdaw structures and the scheme of the bilayer OLED are very impressive and informative. But I am not sure whether the pictures of Br6A and red power Rubrene-OFET are your own work. If no, I suggest you ask for the permission for the authors. Your references include non-journal sources and are absolutely complete. Overall, you did a fabulous job. Your page is very updated, informative and comprehensive. What you need to do for improvement of your revision is correcting grammar mistakes and linked some important terms/concepts as I talked above to the appropriate resources. For each of the application, if you can give people one or more examples of the specific polymers and their structure information, that will be perfect. I find one paper from Sigma-Aldrich. It provides many organic electronics polymer structure information. Hope it can help for your revision.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/materials-science/material-matters/material_matters_v2n3.pdf

Wjunqi (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Instructor Comments

I agree that there are some serious grammar issues throughout. I suggest enlisting a native English speaker help you edit this page. In addition, the inconsistent placement of figures (left versus right versus center), their different sizes, and the varying degrees of text wrapping make the page a bit disjointed. I would stick to one placement (maybe central) and do not use text wrapping. Since the crystal photos are your own, you could position them horizontally instead of vertically. Also, there are existing Wikipedia pages on many of these topics, so there should be a clear indication of this, using "Main article: link" as a stand-alone fragment at the start of each section. For example, see physical organic chemistry. UMChemProfessor (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

A few more suggestions here.

• Please make sure you use images you created by yourself or shared by others under Creative Commons. You claimed that this picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nobel_Prize_in_Chem2000.png is your own work. But it looks more like from an article or a website. Please make sure if you can truly use these images. If so, choose the right Creative Commons license in Creative Commons.
• For the Br6A crystal images, you mentioned you got approval from the author. But please note you may not be able to use them if you just downloaded them from a publisher's website since the publisher holds the copyright of them now. You may want to ask the author for the original images. They are probably with higher resolution too.
• To change the locations and size of images, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

ChemLibrarian (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to Instructor

1. Language problem: We asked two native speakers to read our page, and we revised our page twice based on their comments. We should have fixed the grammar issue by now.

2. Inconsistent placement of figures: We put all of our pictures to the right and kept most of our pictures the same size, so our page should be looking more consistent by now.

3. Crystal photos: We placed our crystal photos horizontally to the right.

4. Existing wikipedia page: Yes, there are existing wikipedia page for some of our topic. However, it'll make our page inconsistent if we say nothing about them and just put a link there. So we developed these topic based on our own logic on this page, and added indications and links to them.

Thank you so much for your precious comment, and I believe our page is now much better. Myxiao (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to ChemLibrarian

1. Our picture on Nobel Prized in Chem 2000: This picture is created by us, we picked individual photo from open access separately, and put them together by ourselves.

2. Br6A crystal images: It turns out everybody has concern on Br6A pictures, but they are original unpublished photo given by its original author. I emailed original author for those pictures, and he kindly sent us not only fantastic pictures, but also a little video clip. However, one original picture we got is of low resolution, that's why it seems a bit odd on our page. Thank you again for your comments. Myxiao (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review #1

Thank you very much for all your suggestions. We totally agree that there needs to be more easily accessible resources. So we linked more words to its wikisite so that non-expert readers can easily go to the page of a specific word or concept. As for the word-choice and language problems you mentioned in both the summary section and content section, we asked two native speakers for help, hopefully we achieved to polish our language. For the references section, you mentioned that most of the references are from scientific and it’s not good. For general concepts and historical events, we actually used the wiki links and web pages, which is definitely very accessible to everybody. As for some scientific discoveries and academic work, we used couple online-journals’ open resource, which is also accessible for most people.

DocJML (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)DocJML

Response to Peer Review #2

Thank you so much for all your suggestions.

We definitely agree that we need to modify the language to avoid any grammar mistakes. Basically we correct the whole page’s language problems with the help of two native speakers. So the questions you mentioned about the introduction part shouldn’t be there now.

As for the questions about lacking links, we added the Wikipedia links to almost every necessary specific word or concept. For the item whose Wikipedia link doesn’t exist, since we provide a lot of references to related material, so it should be also easy to have access if the readers want to.

About the cited pictures, all of the Chemdraw structures and schematic diagrams are drawn by ourselves. And for the picture of crystal, we got both the original copy and the permission of use in Wikipedia from the author by email.

The suggestion about providing examples for each of the application, we appreciate this advice while we just want to give a general idea about each one otherwise the length of this part would be a little prolix. So if the readers want to know more they can easily find through the links and references we provide.

DocJML (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)DocJML

Laminar electronics

What are Laminar electronics?. --Nopetro (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

History

Reverted with a small change. On reflection, agree that charge-transfer compounds should be cited . Will do research and come back and do it. Stanford96 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Matters relevent to conductive polyacetylenes

We are having an interesting discussion over on talk:polyacetylene, if anyone is interested. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

History section

I simplified the wording in the first part of the "History" section - for the benefit of the lay reader, our customer. Much of the next part of the "history" section seems to have too much jargon causing readers' eyes to glaze over. Please see WP:JARGON. I don't have time to simplify the rest of the section. However, I think the chemical processes mentioned in this section need to be simplified for ease of understanding for the general reader. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Can you expand on the reasons for removing the sentences on Cavendish? There are plenty of sources on these points. Whizz40 (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Whizz. Thanks for giving me a chance to discuss this point and others. In my view (alone perhaps) the goal is to get this article into good shape explaining the scope of the field and associated fundamentals. If we get into the mode of allocating importance to various contributors, then we get into a less productive path where ego's, nationalism, etc complicate the mission to explain to the readers what this field is about. But if you are welcome to reinsert it into the history section, and see how it stands. A typical standard is that we avoid laudatory remarks, except for Nobel prizes. As it is, we have one sentence on the Nobel on polyacetylene (nothing about the role that the associated institutions played - Penn in particular, but UCSB), little or nothing about the C60's Nobel. Regarding companies that were started based on organic electronics, there are hundreds, I would guess.

Well those are my views, and I again want to thank you for not going ballistic with what could be seen as opinionated and heavy handed editing. If you want to discuss further or have suggestions, let me know here or elsewhere. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, agree it is better to avoid allocating importance, although this article omitted Burroughes et al entirely. I'll add something more impartial & happy to iterate with you and others to ensure there is due weight in comparison to secondary sources. Whizz40 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Whizz40: You contributed little or nothing for the reader seeking to learn about the substance and scope of organic electronics. Oh well... --Smokefoot (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)