User talk:Gowilguo/sandbox

This page does a good job of elaborating in detail uses of green nanotechnology. It was well written and not biased on why the technology should be used. I would have liked more details on what Nano-technology is. This would be in the original article and not in the use paragraphs being added but a small addition explaining how the different types of nanotechnology work. For example, I understand that a chemical reaction is occurring to reduce air pollution. Is this a filter that is put over sources of pollution? What does this technology look like? Over all very good.

EVRow (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Peer Review:

- The topics/organizations are very clear and separated. This is a good start, as each topic can be expanded in a controlled direction.

- It is good to have an initial section talking about the literature/history in general.

- Definition of green nanotechnology would be helpful.

- 'Concerns' can be put at the end

- Overall, I like the article so far.

(Mathophile (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I think that these additions will be very worthwhile contributions to the page and you have done an effective job thus far keeping a neutral tone of voice. One recommendation, however, is in the area of references--per WP conventions, there should be a source (even if it is another reference source, like a textbook or trade periodical) to validate the claim. An example would be in the case of this sentence (which should have a citation): "In fact, the field of eco-nanotoxicology was founded solely to study the effect of nanotechnology on earth and all of its organisms. "At the moment, scientists are unsure of what will happen when nanoparticles seep into soil and water. Organizations, such as NanoImpactNet, have set out to study these effects." You may also want to clean up some of the content in the existing article as well--especially in the lead. Currently nearly the whole second paragraph is a direct quote and it could instead be a summary of the information from that quote. Amyc29 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]