Talk:Polyfluorene/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail

I see no issues with the quick-fail criteria for this article, so I will proceed with a full review, probably done in a few parts, for organization's sake. Canada Hky (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General notes

Interesting read. It looks like this was part of a class project, and it involved a significant amount of work. I just said that, and then I am going to try to pick the article apart. Don't worry - that doesn't mean it was terrible. If something is terrible, it gets passed over. Picking something to shreds means there was actually something good in there. At least, that's what my thesis advisor told me whenever she handed me a draft back with more red ink than blank ink on it. Please take these comments as advice, rather than criticism.

There are inconsistencies in abbreviations. If an abbreviation (acronym) is not going to be used again - don't bother adding it. For an article like this, with no centralized list of abbreviations, I would define each one at its first use in the section (either Level 2 or Level 3 heading), and then use the abbreviation for every instance until the next section. For instance, in the lead, there is no (LED), but you provide (FET). Neither one is abbreviated again in the lead, so they could probably both be left out.
- In "History", OLEDs is not defined.
- In "Properties", LEDs is not defined.
- In "OLEDs", FRET is not defined.
- In "Polymer solar cells", LUMO is not defined.
- In "Design", ESIPT is not used after it has been defined.
Chemists will get it right off, but for the average person that stumbles across the page, a simple one-sentence explanation in the history section that this has nothing to do with the element Fluorine would probably be helpful.
OLEDs is not a good section heading - try to stay away from abbreviations. If a user only saw the table of contents at the top of the page, its kind of hard to understand.
Overuse of the term "also". Its easy, and hard to pick up on in your own writing, but very awkward to read. It can almost always be left out.
"Figures". Most Wikipedia articles don't follow the same convention as a journal article. Using "Figure 1" etc. could be avoided. Try referring to these figures in the text, and placing the images close to where they are mentioned.
There is a bit of fluff in most of the sections. Example: "One of the reasons that conjugated polymers, polyfluorene included, are such a versatile class of material is because of the variability of relevant properties that molecular design and synthesis afford. Polyfluorenes are designed and synthesized for their applications, usually requiring appropriate luminescent emission, appropriate absorption wavelengths and processability, among other properties."
- This could be shortened to, "Conjugated polymers, such as polyfluorene, can be designed and synthesized with different properties for a wide variety of applications."
- Basically, try to get your point across as quickly and efficiently as possible.
In the references, there is a lack of consistency between abbreviated journal titles and full versions. I prefer full journal titles, but whatever you choose, it needs to be the same all the way through.
Also for consistency, and ease of reading the reference list - either all full names or all initials for the authours.
Consistency in number usage, 9 in numbers, versus ninth written out.
Some sections are a bit technical.

These are a few general issues, which might be a lot to fix. I will give you time to get this all fixed up, and then get on to a few of the more technical aspects. Good luck! Canada Hky (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basics

DAB links which need to be fixed:
External links are all good.

what are DAB links? Thanks! Thanks for all of the comments! They are great! I will get started on working on them so to finish them up as soon as i can! MichChemGSI (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh! Disambiguations links. ok, i will fix those. MichChemGSI (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I might have gone a little heavy on the jargon. Just let me know if anything else needs clearing up! Canada Hky (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It says "(what is this?) (verify)". That looks very odd.
It's part of the chembox validation for infobox parameters. Clicking on the "what is this" would take you here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Chembox_validation. Canada Hky (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the chembox need validation? Is it dynamic? Lightmouse (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As dynamic as anything on Wikipedia can be. There are certain parameters that are verified by a bot to references. If these are changed, you get a red X, if the parameters in the infobox match the referenced parameters you get a check mark. For the parameters and references used, check the link about chembox validation. Canada Hky (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've never seen anything like it. Fine by me. Lightmouse (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "S cm⁻¹" and "cd m⁻²". Should there be a multiplication symbol between the units?
No, that's fairly standard representation of units. Canada Hky (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see the official SI website says Multiplication must be indicated by a space or a half-high (centred) dot (·), since otherwise some prefixes could be misinterpreted as a unit symbol.. I've seen the half-high centred dot on many occasions but the space is new to me. I've learnt something new. Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review? There haven't been any comments in nearly a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in contact with the nominator, and they said they were in the process of working on it. I hadn't realized it had been a month. I will check with the nominator to see how things are going. I haven't forgotten it is still on hold, if that was your question. Canada Hky (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am back from being MIA. I am going to try to work on this weekly and perhaps pull some others to help me out. sorry! how long can an article be in review? also, if I am remembering correctly and as I'm working through the earlier suggestions I feel that I might have completely about 50%, the technical fixes are going to be a bit tough. another other small "wiki" conventions I have missed? MichChemGSI (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]