Talk:Vibrational bond

Hi Todd,

I'm surprised this article hasn't been written already, seems so important! Good thing you're creating it. Your article covers a lot of aspects of vibrational bonds, including its history and importance. The headings are helpful and great job with the index box. Your explanation in the 'Bond' section is also helpful, however, would be better placed in the beginning.

I do not have much (if any) chemistry knowledge which might be why I was confused throughout the article, but considering the audience of Wikipedia it could be beneficial to go through your draft again and simplify not only concepts, but wording as well. For example, the second sentence in the history section is confusing (does between mean medium-sized elements or the space between small and large elements). Your first sentence should be a very clear definition of vibrational bonds (as already talked about in class). The very last sentence can also be divided up into separate sentences as well as worded more clearly. Try to be as direct as possible and get rid of extra words.

The way this article is structured is good and can allow you to stress how cool this discovery is (through talking about its history and much later discovery). However, if I hadn't heard you talk about it in class I wouldn't have gotten the impression of how recent and important this discovery is. This could be fixed by elaborating on sections, especially its discovery and importance for science. Overall, this is an important article and has the basic components. To make it accessible to Wikipedia users, I would recommend combing through your draft and explaining more advanced terms, instead of just listing elements you could explain what they have in common or why they're important in vibrational bonds, clarifying concepts and definitions, and swapping sentences with filler words for direct, active statements (for example, under the bond section, you can get rid of: In chemistry it is known that.) JuliaD123 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review (Cusack)

Major Points

The "History" section of the article begins as though it was written first as an essay and paraphrased for Wikipedia. This isn't a bad thing, but I think your purposes would be better served by omitting phrases like 'One year after' and 'at a research lab.' They do ease the reading a bit but feel awkward in a scientific/encyclopedic page.

I think it would be very useful to link to the accompanying Wikipedia articles for things like van der Waals interaction or deuterium, tritium, etc. as this will lend some insight to uninitiated readers. Likewise, it may be useful to link to your own page from the Donald Fleming wiki page, as it would potentially garner some exposure.

Minor Points

There are a bunch of spelling and grammatical errors that would be really easy to fix with a few minutes of skimming. I've listed some below that could be fixed, but keep in mind this was only after a brief look.

• "van der Waals" is the correct capitalization of the term
• Header: "Vibration Bond" -> "Vibration*al* Bond" (?)
• Isotope "BRLBR" -> "BrLBr" (?)
• Capitalization of vibrational in "Discovery" section (?)
• First sentence of "Bond" section can be re-written as: "In chemistry, it is known that an increase in temperature increases the rate or reaction of an experiment. However vibrational bonds are not formed like covalent bonds, where electrons are shared between the two bonding atoms." I think this makes it flow a bit smoother.

Tylercusack (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)