User talk:Zeeshaan Chunawala/Paul Hugh Emmett

I hope my peer editing comments are helpful. Dlu16 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I finished peer reviewing your article. Adevire1 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MH final comments

This is a very good article - nicely done. It's hard to find things that need substantial improvement, but for some final tweaks before May 8, I'd suggest the following:

1. Look for places you can replace relatively vague descriptions with examples: for example, rather than simply saying the implications of his work for catalysis are "immense", try to list one or two ways it's been used in other research or industrial processes (something along the lines of "his work had immense implications for the field of catalysis, forming the base for X's work on Y" or ".. for the field of catalysis, including the production of common devices like catalytic converters", etc.) It's very easy to go overboard here - you don't want to rewrite all the linked articles - so use your good judgment and keep any additions short. The principle here, which also applies to academic writing more generally, is "show, don't tell" - wherever you can, don't tell your reader what to think ("this is important", "this is interesting", etc.), just show your reader the facts that'll make them draw this conclusion.

2. If possible, adding links to his publications in the last section would make the article more useful as a research tool.

Overall, though, well done! As it stands, you're already in good shape, and I look forward to reading the final version.

MH comments

Excellent job on this article! It's not only well researched, but also takes full advantage of the integrated Wikipedia format. As you revise your draft, keep the following in mind:

1. Make sure all citations are in the proper place to fully explain the facts given - for example, the placement of the citation in the first paragraph of the 'Death and Legacy' section suggests that it's only for the Parkinson's fact, leaving the reader wondering where you got his death date from.

2. Think about the balance of the article, making sure the length and detail of each section corresponds to how important it is for the reader in understanding the life of Emmett. For example, the section 'Doctoral Work and Thesis' is the same length as the 'BET Theory' section, mostly because of the details given about his advisor's work. Even though it has its own article, consider giving the BET section a little more scope in order to give it more weight. Ideally, the length of the sections should provide a very rough visual account of their relative significance to the article. Alternatively, you can achieve a similar weighting effect by adding a relevant image.

3. The ideas to add more pictures and to list his most significant publications (with links) are good ones, and I would encourage both.

Also, please post a comment to the Talk page of the original article explaining that you're drafting a new version of this article for a WikiEducation class, providing a short summary of the changes you've made (dividing it into sections, adding information, etc.) so that when you begin moving this across in a couple of weeks, it won't come as a surprise.

You've received an extra peer review (my mistake); take a look at these and continue to revise in the sandbox (all your old drafts are saved automatically). Again, this article is already in very good shape, so you have the opportunity now to think about verbal and visual ways to guide the reader through the article and make it work on multiple levels. Wikipedia takes all sorts: a quick skimmer should be able to easily identify the most salient points, while someone beginning a research project should be able to use its sources and questions as a springboard for more detailed investigation. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]