- Formatting: tie into appropedia with hyperlinks, also wikipedia defs.,. use existing site resources to explain basic concepts
- Content: you need to get into the peer reviewed literature in a major way - MBE is well established - lots of work has been done on process improvements, after a complete review - choose one of them and then quantify the improvements to efficiency.
--Joshua 16:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit source]
Hey Chris. It's Michael de Souza. Sorry it took me so long to get started on the review of your project page. I apologize and I'm going to be working on it today (Wednesday) and putting any final comments in tomorrow. I read the content on your page and I think you did a good job at explaining how both the system and actual process works for MBE. I'll read it over a few more times, along with the wikipedia article on MBE.
Just a couple comments on grammar and format for now:
- I also still have to do this with my project page; I think it'll be a good idea to place references/links to wikipedia throughout your article. For instance, you mention Boltzman's constant; it would be useful to link it to the Wikipedia article on Boltzman's constant. I myself am not exactly sure how to do this but as soon as I bring up the "how to" I'll post it here for you.
- There was one sentence under the heading Substrate Stage: "Upon the substrate holder is placed a material upon which the beams are to interact and the source material is to be deposited"
I guess you could rewrite that to sound something like "A material, on which the beams interact and source material is deposited, is placed upon the substrate holder."
- Also I'm not sure how Dr. Pearce will approach this, but I noticed that your patents are from 93 and 2000. I know I had spoken to him about my project and he had mentioned that it's good to keep referenced sources as recent as possible. But like I said, I'm not sure how this will be approached.
I'll add more here if I find anything else. All in all though, great job man.