User:Wuhudasima/Gold–aluminium intermetallic/MaMaGaoSuWoYongHuMingBieQiTaiChang Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 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.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Wuhudasima

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Wuhudasima/Gold–aluminium intermetallic

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Gold–aluminium intermetallic

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi, Wuhudasima! Here's my peer review for you:

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead remains unchanged.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it has one concise sentence that defines the topic. It is easy to understand.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead section only has an introductory sentence that describes what the topic is, but doesn't describe or summarize the article's body.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The introductory sentence is concise and easy to understand. However, I would like to know what are "the two metals" in the sentence referring to. Is it between any two metals or two specific of metals? Specifying this will help understanding. Besides, the lead should include what the article describes. For example, you can add "The intermetallic has a variety of compositions and properties, with the most common being White Plague, Purple Plague, and Au₂Al. The formation of intermetallic can cause problems such as system failure in wire bonding", and maybe briefly explains why would it cause the problem, etc.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. I like the parts you added, especially this part, "the production of gaps lowers the strength of the metal compound, which can cause mechanical failure at the joint, fostering the problems that the intermetallics causes in metal compounds". This directly connects the formation of intermetallics to the consequence of having the intermetallics.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all sources are from 2008 onwards.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think you can go further into how the intermetallics are formed. Is the formation process spontaneous? How long would it take to form? You can talk about the Gibbs free energy. Is the formation reversible? You can also include reaction formula when necessary to aid visual understanding. Besides, I would also be interested if you include the history of intermetallic: when is it discovered and who discovered, etc... In the last paragraph, you discussed about the research application. With that, I was wondering can intermetallic be synthesized? With what methods can it be synthesized? Who discovered these methods? etc... Furthermore, when discussing with molecules, Au₅Al₂ and others, instead of writing out all the data, "its melting point is about 575 °C", inserting a Chembos template for a more detailed data chart and better visualization.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes. Contents added are all descriptive.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, this article has a neutral tone.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Perhaps. The article focuses more on the down side of intermetallic, being damaging the wire joint and causing system failure. On the end, you briefly discuss other applications of intermetallic, which can be expanded more.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, not really, but makes me feel that this intermetallic has limited applications. If it doesn't, then more contents should be added to convince the reader.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. "low electrical conductivity and relatively low melting point. Au₅Al₂ typically forms at 95% of Au and 5% of Al by mass, its melting point is about 575 °C" no reference here. "The production of gaps lowers the strength of the metal compound, which can cause mechanical failure at the joint, fostering the problems that the intermetallics causes in metal compounds. At composition of 93% of Au and 7% of Al by mass, AuAl₂ is replaced by Au₂Al, a tan-colored substance. It is also a poor conductor and can cause electrical failure of the joint, which further lead to mechanical failure." no reference here. The entire third paragraph has no reference. The last part of the article has no reference.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No. I believe you can delve deeper and support your statements in the article with additional references.
• Are the sources current? Yes. They are from 2008 onwards.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sourcing is diverse. The article doesn't relate to history.
• 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.) No. The sources you have look good, being mostly peer-reviewed articles. This gives reliability to the article.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The consistency and flow can be improved. You can add a thesis sentence to clearly inform the readers what the paragraph is about. For example, in the second paragraph, you can start by stating "The intermetallics come in three major forms: White Plague, Purple Plague, and Au₂Al. Despite having different composition and properties, all of them can lead to system failure". I also suggest to bold important names, such as White Plague, Purple Plague, and Au₂Al. It makes them to stand out in a plain paragraph and helps the reader to concentrate better.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "AuAl₂ is replaced by Au₂Al, a tan-colored substance. It is also a poor conductor" To which object is 'it' referring? AuAl₂ or Au₂Al? "AuAl₂ has a beautiful purple color, this color is quite rare in the metal and intermetallic compounds." Change this color to which, or separate into two sentences.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. Adding subtitles will help understanding. You can potentially breakdown the article body by the type of intermetallic and discuss about each composition, properties, and applications individually.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

No media or image is added.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. The last paragraph added is a new section. It gives the article more depth.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content added explains the topic further and extra details such as specific melting point. It also connects the formation of intermetallic with the problems it causes better.
• How can the content added be improved? Some contents seem redundant. For this part "Au₅Al₂, also known as White Plague ... the major gold-aluminum intermetallic compounds." The melting point seems redundant. You can instead write "Au₅Al₂, also known as White Plague, typically forms at 95% of Au and 5% of Al by mass. It has a low electrical conductivity and a lowest melting point, 575 °C, among the major gold-aluminum intermetallic compounds." This makes the reader to understand better. For the last paragraph, some parts seem redundant. You can delete this sentence " Additionally, being used as a resistor is also a major application of AuAl₂. AuAl₂has high resitivity and high melting point, which is a desirable resistor in many field, due to its strength at high temperature."