User talk:Artisticalligator/Stokes shift

Peer Review

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- The lead does not reflect the new content, but this makes sense because the new content is examples of applications. Still, it might be worth mentioning Raman spectroscopy
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes..? But the lead also serves as an explanation of Stokes shift, so I don't think this is a problem
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is overly detailed, but this could be fixed by adding a divider establishing when the lead ends and content begins.
I would find a citation for the citation needed part, or take it out

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes! It's some useful examples of applications
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- It might be useful to say that yttrium oxysulfide is a phosphor
- The yttrium oxysulfide section is a little thin. I support giving it its own section within applications, but maybe give some examples of where it is used (what industries is it common in?)
- It's a little unclear how Stokes shift provides information on vibrational modes, where is the connection between Stokes shift and vibrational modes?
- How do researchers gain understanding of physical and chemical properties? Please add a source
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Not relevant

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No, it's not! Please add your sources!

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes
Are images well-captioned?
- The caption of the added image is very long. It might be worthwhile to create a new "Explanation of Stokes shift" section, add information from the Lead and from this caption to there, and change the caption to something more concise, like "Virtual states in Jablonski diagram of Stokes shift"
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- I don't know. It looks homemade and I don't know the copyright regulations
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- I don't know if this is possible to do, but if the images are aligned with the section they refer to, that would help clarify the page

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, absolutely, but there is still more information needed to complete the contributions
What are the strengths of the content added?
- Talking about Raman spectroscopy makes the article scientifically relevant, and adding the example of yttrium oxysulfide establishes that Stokes shifts are industrially relevant
How can the content added be improved?
- Sourcing and some more explanation of statements that are already there. I hope my comments above make sense