User talk:Bird flock/Computational chemistry
Peer Review
[edit]First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
Good job on this article. I really like the following in your article
Clarity of Explanation: The article presents complex concepts in a clear and understandable manner, making it accessible to students who may not have a deep background in computational chemistry.
Real-World Examples: Good use of real-world examples and practical applications of the split operator technique in fields such as catalysis, drug development, and computational chemistry databases. These examples helped me to grasp the relevance of the technique.
Discussion of Error and Accuracy: The concept of "splitting error" provides a clear example of how it occurs. It also introduces methods to reduce this error, contributing to a better understanding of the technique.
Relevance to undergraduate Students: It highlights the importance of the split operator technique for undergraduate students and the challenges faced by computational chemists. This context is valuable for readers.
Neutral Tone
Good use of citations from reliable sources
• What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be
an improvement?
Given that this article involves a lot of math and computational details, it could be improved by using simpler language. To clarify, when we talk about intricate math or computational concepts, it would be beneficial to explain things in a way that a second-year undergraduate student can grasp. One way to do this is to simplify equations and provide step-by-step explanations. Moreover, a discussion about recent trends in computational chemistry will make this article better.
Incorporate Visual Aids: Create diagrams or flowcharts to visually explain the process of splitting differential equations. For example, you could illustrate how a complex equation is split into simpler components and then recombined. Visual aids would make the process easier to grasp.
• What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
Simplifying the complex language and discussing some recent trends in computational chemistry
• Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own.
I've learned from the article the importance of using techniques like 'Brogan' to simplify complex language, making the content more accessible. Additionally, it highlighted the value of discussing recent trends in the field to keep readers informed about the latest developments. GurkiratSinghNijjar (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Peer review
Overall, the edit seems to fit in well with the original article and the content is neutral and not-too opinion based.
Some feedback to improve your article could be:
- Shortening the split operator technique subsection in order to create a more balanced article since the other methods in the article have short summaries and instead linked another wikiarticle that has more detail on the techniques mentioned.
- Also need citations as to where the formula is from.
- “Computational costs are about how much time it takes for computers to caclulate these chemical systems, as it can take days for more complex systems.” This sentence needs citation
- “Computational chemists are increasing in demand as companies need people with computational skills to develop informatics, infrastructure and designs of drugs. As demand for scientists with experience in computational methods rise, companies outside of drug development research are finding computational chemistry a valuable asset.” This part also needs citation
- “Understanding how water interacts with these nanomaterials ensures stability of the material in human bodies.” This too need citation.
- Computational Chemistry Database section doesn’t have any citation.
- Re-read and check for any sentences that are not based on common knowledge and make sure to cite the sources to get that knowledge.Dev1 0302 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)