Awalsh621

Hi there!

Welcome to Wikipedia, lets figure this thing out together! Doriineia (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Awalsh621, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

Just saying hi since I missed class on Friday and was told to do so. Hillaryjd (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer review 1

Major points: Your model article has an info box. You may need to add one for each article. Also pictures will really help as well. Maybe picture of how the compound looks like, or pictures of things that contain the compound. They will make the articles look much better.

Information doesn't seem to be enough. These information can be expanded into more details. For example, in "health effects", you could give more details on the data in the study and explain a bit more on its toxicity. Your model article has results from various studies. Having data backing up your statement makes the article more convincing.

You can have subsections in each section to make the article more organized. For example, "uses" could possibly be split into sub-sections "flame retardant", "plasticizer".

Minor points: You can delete the [edit source, edit] bar in the heading because it will be automatically generated.

When you cite things, you can use in edit source.

Chen.shuj (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chen.shuj (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Major Points: Needs an info box and some pictures of the molecule. I'd suggest looking into books as well, if you're having trouble finding information concerning its reaction to nail polish. Good sources so far, though you may want more sources for some of your claims. How can it be nontoxic and non-biocummulative if the health effects are unknown? Clarify this Minor Points: Several short sentences, which may or may not need expansion. First sentence under uses is too wordy, consider separating it into several sentences. Make sure you represent all view points (if possible), as only having sources taking one stance on the subject can be interpreted as violating npov. Serrion (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review 2

Major points: There are some words you may want to provide link of. For example, in the beginning paragraph, "ester". This word is a good representation of what word should be linked. It's the type of the word that ordinary audience don't know its meaning and it won't be explained in the article.

Maybe the beginning paragraph should be expanded a little more. Right now, it tells what's TPhp as a chemical compound but there's more than that in the article. You may want to briefly summarize other sections and put them in the introduction. For example, briefly introduce its mechanism, its health effect.

I feel the article still can be expanded more. For example, "TPhP is frequently identified at low levels in urban air, as well as indoors and in indoor dust". You can also talk about the explicit data advocating this argument, what does this mean and how would low level in urban air affect its influence on human. I'm just saying, maybe you could provide more information on that from your source. It's good to provide more information from your source if it's reliable.

Minor points: Just some format problems in citation. I'm sure you will figure them out.

Chen.shuj (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Major Points: I agree with Chen on the need to clarify what words mean. While this is a highly specific article, the introduction section should still be accessible to a general audience. Definitely expand that section, as general information may be easier to find than some of the references needed in the rest of the article.

Minor Points: Feel free to give definitions for each chemical term you define, or alternatively you can link to their wikipedia page. Serrion (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)