User talk:Michaelmok1010
| This user is a student editor in The_University_of_British_Columbia/CHEM_300_(Fall_2024) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Michaelmok1010, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Boiling point elevation peer review
[edit]Hello!
I have completed your peer review for boiling point elevation! It should be visable on the peer review page but I will also copy it here
Lead
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead of the article has been rewritten and I believe that it includes new information. However the way it was rewritten is more confusing then the original lead and no new information was been added. For example "Boiling-point elevation is the phenomenon whereby the difference in boiling point of a pure liquid (a solvent) compared to when a non-volatile solute is added to that solvent, this usually results in a pure solvent having a lower temperature than its solution." is too long of a sentence and is written in a confusing manner. The wording "phenomenon whereby the difference in boiling point of a pure solvent compared to when...". For this sentence to make sense you would have to say what the difference is, or what you are comparing.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The lead includes no information about calculations but an equation is covered later on the the article. It would be helpful to include information that an equation is coming up.
Content
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes information added is relevant to the topic but very little content was added to the article. Overall you have only added a total of 4-5 sentences. Although these are relevant to the topic I feel like there is definitely still more information that could be included. For example you briefly cover topics on ways to see this "phenomenon" but could defiantly explain more about them. You could also include more information on scenarios where this is seen in real life or information on the history of how it was discovered. I also think that the uses section is significantly smaller than other sections so would recommend you expand that.
- Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes the information is up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think there is definitely information missing that could be added. See the above comment on content. It would also maybe be useful to include more background of the relationship to Van't Hoff Factor and Raoult's Law. What you have added is difficult to understand so should be expanded on.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No you have not talked about any underrepresented groups.
Tone and Balance
- Is the content added neutral? - Yes everything that has been added is neutral. The only thing I would suggest is that you only talk about one specific technique to measure boiling point accurately being an ebullioscope. I would consider expanding this if there are other possible techniques to add neutrality.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I think that the uses section is underrepresented. This is typically what most people would be looking to take away from the article and is quite small in comparison.
Sources and References
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Most is referenced but here are suggestions on sentences that would benefit from a citation.
-"This phenomenon happens for all solutes in solutions, including ideal solutions, and is independent of specific solute–solvent interactions. Boiling point elevation occurs when it is both an electrolyte, like salts, and a nonelectrolyte which is explained by the Van't Hoff Factor."
-"A nonvolatile solute reduces the solvent’s vapor pressure, meaning a higher temperature is needed for the vapor pressure to reach the surrounding pressure, causing the boiling point to elevate." : Is this information in one of your sources
-"Freezing-point depression is analogous to boiling point elevation, though the magnitude of freezing-point depression is larger for the same solvent and solute concentration." : How much larger? Where did you get this from?
- Are the sources thorough - You have only added 2 new sources to an article that only has 3 overall. You shoudl be striving to add at least 5 sources to fully expand this article. Are there other places you could look for information to add?
- Are the sources current? - Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - No. One of the sources you have added has no author, and the other is not an author from a diverse background
- 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.) - The sources you have added are good you just need more. Where else can you look for credible information that is publicly available? Try finding more textbooks or even articles if necessary.
Organization
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is ok. Most of the sentences added are very long and wordy. It took me multiple times going through them to understand what they where saying. This could just be on the nature of the topic but consider how it reads out loud.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I would focus on the length of your sentences. Read the whole article out loud and see where you need to pause. There are no spelling errors however.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I think that portions of the article could definitely be broken down more for example the explanation section is very long without subheadings. The equation segment could also be longer
Images and Media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - There is only one image included in the article and it is not laid out well. I can see that you are planning to include another image but I would check Wikipedias guidelines. I believe you can only add images that you make yourself so see if you are actually able to insert the LibreTexts image. We also learned about figure making in class and I feel like you would be able to make your own figure that strengthens the article.
Overall Comments
- Your contribution should be between 500-1000 words so definitely try to add a little more!
- You should also try to add at least 5 new sources to the article. This is especially important in your case since the article is starting with so few sources.
- Try and make your own figure to add in and break up the text
Great work!
Erowlandson1 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I left a peer review on the peer review page. Great start so far! Just make sure to keep the sentences concise and add those citations.
WwikiS (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)WwikiS