User talk:Greenflower275/Dishwashing liquid

Peer-Review[edit]

Hello Greenflower275,

Here is the peer-review of your Wikipedia edits!

Lead:

The lead provides an introductory sentence regarding the topic of the article. You provided additional edits for overall clarity of the topic and to use active voice, which is great!
Additional information regarding the chemistry (specifically surface tension) was added and this information should definitely be included in the article, however, it might be too much detail for the Lead and would be best elsewhere, potentially when discussing the ingredients and their properties.
It could also be beneficial to help guide the reader by providing an outline of the articles subtopics.

Content:

The added content is up-to-date and relevant to the topic. The additional uses are also a great addition as well as the discussion on surface tension. I would, however, recommend moving the discussion on surface tension out of the introduction, and maybe tie it into the composition section.
Some of the added content, such as the ionic/anionic surfactant properties are very interesting, however potentially a bit too new and might not yet be established enough for inclusion in the article. Additionally, the discussion of currants for skin sensitization (which is very interesting!), might be slightly too removed from the topic to be relevant in this particular article.
I would recommend be extra cautious when discussing health-related aspects of your topic such as the health effects (vomiting, skin sensitization), as Wikipedia has fairly strict protocols for these kinds of topic.

Tone and Balance:

I think you did a very good job of identifying and removing some points of bias in the original article, such as the source and claims from an advertisement.
In general, the tone was fairly neutral, however (and I definitely do not believe this was intentional), the section that discusses health impacts like sensitization, and puking, then discussing alternative homemade ingredients could be potentially biasing the reader towards more "natural" products. This was in the original article too, so you did not introduce a new bias, but this is just something to be aware of, especially given that the existing citations were not from reliable scientific sources and instead, were from "wellness" books and articles from potentially unreliable journals (sources 20, 21, 22).

Sources and References:

I believe the new sources added were 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 23.
These were all primary sources from reputable peer-reviewed journals, so the information should be reliable. These sources are all current and up-to-date, and the links work. These were well-chosen and properly cited, however, the drawback to these types of sources are they are generally behind a paywall and highly technical, so they might not accessible to most of the general public.

Organization:

The writing style and edits are made to help with clarity and conciseness and use active voice.This is mostly very well done, there were just a few spots where the meaning was a little unclear, such as the first sentence of the history section.
Additionally, although most of the writing style was clear and concise, the section " Preservatives prevent micro-organisms' proliferation within the liquid. Antibacterial ingredients makes it difficult for bacteria to proliferate on surfaces." could be clarified to not seem too repetitive.
The flow in the additional uses section is done well and is logical. For the section on Types, Composition and safety, it might be best to make those each subsections and have the appropriate headings to clarify the topics. Additionally, it might be best to separate the surfactants section and discuss that as a separate paragraph to improve the flow of that section.

Images and Media:

No new images were added, however some captions were updated. The captions “Water and dishwashing liquid mixing to form foam”, “Dishwashing process”, “Dishwashing liquid with different dyes/scents”, provide more context and clarity than their original captions.
However, the original caption “An oiled Gannet being washed” might be a bit clearer grammatically than the new caption “Washing an oiled Gannet”. A further suggestion to tie into the article could be “An oiled Gannet being washed with dishwashing liquid”

Overall Impressions:

A lot of detail and thorough analysis clearly went into these edits! There is a very strong balance of practical grammar edits for clarity (e.g. switching to active voice), removing unnecessary/biased information (e.g. information from advertisement, deleting detergent formula depends on use), and adding additional useful information (e.g. information on surface tension, additional uses). Overall, very thorough edits and a very keen attention to detail, so very well done!
My main suggestion for improvement would be to decide which information is particularly relevant and necessary for this specific topic and which information is too technical or new for Wikipedia (such as the current seeds for irritation, which is very interesting, but maybe a little bit too distant from the article’s main topic).
Similarly, deciding which aspects of chemistry to talk about, such as the anionic v.s ionic surfactants, and surface tension might be slightly too high level for the intended audience.
I would also recommend revising the organization of certain parts of the article to help with the clarity. For example, the discussion of surface tension in the introduction is very interesting and relevant, but might be too detailed for the lead. This could also be helpful when discussing the ingredients and their uses, properties and potential hazards.

Wikichem63 (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding moving some information about the chemistry of surface tension to only the ingredients and properties part, I agree with this point of view. It's a bit too much information for the lead.

I don't plan on providing an outline for the article's subtopics in the lead, as I think there's already enough information in the lead to infer what are the subtopics following up. I also think adding the outline would make my lead look incohesive with other parts of the lead.

I disagree with the reviewer's suggestion regarding removing the part on different types of surfactants and blackcurrant seeds, which help with lessening allergic reactions. I believe these topics are necessary for understanding the ways of dealing with allergies and the chemistry of modifying the dishwashing liquid for a better product.

I appreciate the reviewer's suggestion on being careful about including health effects when using dishwashing liquid. However, these added information don't encourage readers to do anything dangerous, so I believe those information on health effects are acceptable.

The reviewer identified that the section on making natural dishwashing liquid at home might be a little biased because it seems to encourage people to make dishwashing liquid by themselves. I see the point of the reviewer. However, I look at this information as a fact more than a bias. It is obvious that there will be much less exposure and wastes to the environment if one sticks to the methods to make dishwashing liquid at home.

I agree with the reviewer that the first sentence of the history section was confusing. I will fix it so the meaning is clear!

I agree with the reviewer that the part describing preservatives and antibacterial ingredient was a bit repetitive. I will fix upon the wording of that part also!

I disagree with the reviewer regarding splitting my section of composition and safety up into smaller sections. These 2 subtopics integrate one another, as when I'm talking about composition, I integrate them with safety at the same time. This prevents having to repeat myself again if I do end up splitting the subtopic.

I agree with the reviewer to have a section that is dedicated to details about surfactants only. However, I'm still going to keep general information about surfactants in the introduction and composition, safety part.

I agree with the reviewer on the suggestion of changing the caption of the Gannet image with "An oiled Gannet being washed with dishwashing liquid". However, I still want to keep my active voice in there, so I will change it to "Washing an oiled Gannet with dishwashing liquid" Greenflower275 (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm going to change the part that the reviewer suggest might be potentially bias regarding "home made" dishwashing liquid. I will make it sound more neutral. Thank you for the helpful feedback! Greenflower275 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]