TA Comments:
In-text citations: yes
Professional tone: yes
Paraphrasing real science: yes
Grammar and spelling: overall good
Links to other wiki articles: yes
Score: 20/20
Peer Review:
The article is well-written, organized, and concise. The language is subjective and professional. In-text citations as well as links to other Wikipedia pages are present; the latter makes it easy to read up on potentially unfamiliar topics. The equation is formatted nicely as well. For a person unfamiliar with science, there may be some instances of disconnected information. For example, I would include the variables in the paragraph about the energy equation, sort of like an appositive. Also, maybe briefly mention that energy and wavelength are inversely proportional in the fourth paragraph. If possible, include the relation between the NIR region and lymph node mapping, because it seems disconnected here. Overall, I think you did a great job; some logic just might be a little confusing to follow for a person unfamiliar with science.
THAI, SANDY Peer Review Score: 20/20
George's feedback: -They display quantum confinement in that the electrons cannot escape the “dot”, thus allowing particle-in-a-box approximations to be applied[2]. I feel like there is a logic jump here for those unfamiliar with the concept of "particle in the box" -Cite what a band gap is -"Manipulation of the band gap" what does that mean? " One notable function" don't editorialize Maybe start with application of quantum dots first so the motivation to model quantum dots as particle in a box is more clear
Start a discussion about improving the User:Nikkiesingh/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Nikkiesingh/sandbox" page.
