Talk:Photopolymer

Proposed merge of Light-activated resin to here.

Proposed merging Light-activated resin to Photopolymer. Same thing, different terminology used in another field. --John Nagle (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but also what actually is the topic (in order to decide which way to merge/which title should be the actual article)? Light-activated resin's lede and content are specifically just light-induced polymerization, in which case photopolymerization might redirect to it (and some of polymerization moved into it as well--all facets of the process not just the material itself?). Photopolymer's lede says it's about changes of "properties" (not any specific property or response to light), but the only actual content is about light-induced polymerization. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Anyone from the chemistry project (where this merge is referenced) care to suggest the appropriate terminology? Photopolymerization is currently a redirect to polymerization, which doesn't actually say anything about photopolymerization. Also, what happens in some light-activated resins is that they start out as linear long-chain polymers, so they flow, but when hit with UV, the chains crosslink, and the material hardens. Some of this is covered at Cross-link. Some good references on this stuff seem to be behind paywalls.[1][2]. But here's a free one.[3]. Since this is the underlying chemistry behind better 3D printing, it would be useful for Wikipedia to have a good article on it. But I'm not a chemist. John Nagle (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that the issue of photopolymerization linking has been resovled: now directs to a relevant section. That still leaves the merge to do (which the above discussion seems to support, perhaps with some material moved to polymerization). Klbrain (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Peer Reviewer #1

Overall, the sandbox seems to be a good improvement to what currently exists, and does seem to highlight the basics of photopolymers. However, the flow of the page doesn’t seem to be very good. In other words, the sentence structure seems somewhat choppy, as if facts are simply stated one after the other, with little transitions or flow between thoughts. For those that are non-experts in polymer chemistry, this may make it more difficult to understand the content of your page. Otherwise, the layout of the sections seems logical (order of presentation), and should stick with the order in which the information is presented.

Content

While some sections go into great detail (“Onium salts”, “Free-radical photoinitiators”), some sections barely describe the basic definitions of the topic, or the sub-section seems unnecessary in a way that the information could simply be thrown into the opening introduction to the section (“Oligomers and functional groups” in “Ionic mechanism” section, “negative resists” in “Photoresists” section – doesn’t contain an actual definition). While a lot of unfamiliar concepts are linked to their Wikipedia pages, some links that they have attempted to insert do not exist in Wikipedia, thus linking to an empty site (CAD-CAM, network polymer, iodonium). This may be something worth removing, since there is no use for a link to a page that does not exist. On the other hand, concepts like Lewis acid & photoresist should be linked to their respective Wikipedia pages. Otherwise, most of the necessary concepts and terms that have detailed definitions are linked appropriately, and make it easier for readers to understand the material.

While the examples used are appropriate for their respective topics, and the figures used seem to be appropriate, the writers should expand on some of the sections in order to better describe the topic (photoresists – give an application to where/how these are used; oligomers and functional groups – images of some of the monomers, and/or give an example through a figure to how these are polymerized through photoinitiation).

In addition to these comments, there are multiple typos throughout the page (“in those case”, “styrenic compunds” for example). The ions listed in “Onium Salts” section should also be properly formatted to superscript charges and subscript numbers.

Figures

Figures presented are appropriate for the section they are incorporated in, and are originally made. They help drive home the point of the section, and are accurately drawn. However, some need better formatting on the page. For example, the “nm” in “M_nmM” looks awkward, and may not be necessary given the way you’ve made the figure. In addition, the “onium salts” figure as a thumbnail looks blurry, and should either be expanded or not inserted as a thumbnail (possibly incorporate it into the text). Also, the figures used in the "free radical photoinitiator" section may benefit from names of the molecules underneath them. This helps pair names of molecules to structure and how they work directly on the page.

Some sections may benefit from a figure, particularly the introduction. This section is supposed to prepare the reader to get a basic understanding of the topic, yet is solely text. A figure that gives the basics as to how photopolymers are made and what properties change upon illumination, etc. can be extremely helpful for this section.

References

The number of references used for the site meets the criteria for the project, including the number of added citations, and the inclusion of freely available non-journal sources. While the subsections seem to have a couple of references in them, there is a lot of information that is not cited! The “Ionic Mechanism” introduction has information in it that needs to be cited, even if it’s a citation that is in one of the subsections. Other sections not cited include “Monomers used in free-radical curing processes”, “oligomers used in free-radical curing processes”, “free radical photoinitiators”, and the “Introduction” section only has 2 citations at the very end – authors should try to expand sources.

WikiChemist2013 (talk)

Peer Reviewer #2

Content

Overall the content of the page is good. Mechanisms of photopolymerization are very detailed yet still approachable. The intro seems very in depth and could be more general. The introduction section could use some rewording to make it more approachable for non-experts for example the sentence “The solventless nature of these reaction eliminate termination path via reaction of initiators with solvent and impurities” has no explanation of termination pathways and may not even be necessary. Throughout the page there needs to be more linking to appropriate Wikipedia pages. Also I noticed several grammatical errors and typos that can easily be fixed.

Figures

The figures look great. They are all high quality and have extensive explanation to back them up. Possibly using a picture in the introduction section or applications could add more visual appear, the page is very black and white. Wikicommons probably already has many pictures of these types of polymers.

References

The number of references is more than enough and contains book, journals, and websites. Some of the references are lacking page numbers and not all the citations are uniform but this is a minor issue.

Overall

Overall the page looks great and is a dramatic improvement over the previous page. The figures look good and are well supported. Addition of more “types” of figures could improve the visual appeal of the page. The content is relevant and explained will but some of the wording can be complicated and confusing, more linking of key words and rewording can improve this. Mofchem (talk)

Instructor Comments

I agree that the introduction could use a generic figure or two that explain the concept of a photopolymer. The sections seem uneven in their presentation quality, and the appropriate Wikipedia pages should be linked (e.g., photoresists). The figures within the page are not uniform in terms of font size, boldness, etc. Some discussion between partners on Chemdraw settings and scaling would be good. Both peer reviewers raised good points, including the oddly long titles and perhaps overuse of titled sections. UMChemProfessor (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

A few suggestions here.

• There is no need to use a section title for "Introduction". Just combine it with the very first sentence of your article to be the leading section of the article. Content-wise, the introduction part can use a little more application related content so that a general public reader would understand the importance of photopolymer.
• As UMChemProfessor pointed our, your figures are not consistent, change fonts and settings in ChemDraw may help. Other image formatting tips, please see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

ChemLibrarian (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviewers

We greatly appreciate your reviews and have taken all of your points into consideration. Both reviewers commented on the wording of the introduction. Therefore we have expanded upon, and re-worded the introduction in hopes that it will be more accessible to non-experts. We have stated some applications of photo polymerization up front, so that readers can understand the relevance of photopolymers. Additionally, two figures have been added to give readers a pictorial representation of the photopolymerization process, as well as an example of the chemical composition. We made sure to add several more references and links throughout the introduction, and throughout sections that were previously lacking in references.

Both reviewers mentioned inconsistencies in figures from one section to another. We recognized these differences and addressed the issues. All fonts through the figures are consistent, as well as, relative scale of the chemical structure. In particular, there was a figure in the "Onium Salt" section that was blurry, either due to being imported as a thumb or image size, The figure was centered and brought to scale with the other figures, and is now more clear.

There were also several concerns with regard to title assignments and length of subtitles. As requested by ChemLibrarian, the introduction title was removed. Also, we made sure to adjust the subtitles in there respective sections to an appropriate length that is consistent with other sections.

There were also comments made with regard to "empty links". For subjects mentioned on the page that did not have a wikipedia, no link was made. We did however make an effort to find broader subjects that were applicable to what was referenced. For example, there was no page for "iodonium", but there was a page for "halonium ion". Instances like these we linked the term to pages we thought would be helpful to the reader.

Other useful comments were those made about the lack of content in specific sections. For example, it was brought to our attention that there were sections that lacked a simple definition, like the "negative resist" section. We made additions to those sections to assure that all points were addressed that we saw fit. Other sections that fit into this category include the smaller less detailed sections like "Oligomers and functional groups" under "Ionic Mechanism". In this case the information from "Oligomers and functional groups" was added to the opening section "Ionic Mechanism". There were errors in the notation of chemical formulas, and after the "chem" template was brought to our attention we applied accordingly to correct for proper notation. There was also comments made about the lack of diversity in our "type" of figures, and that the page seemed to be very black and white. We added two new pictorial figures that may be easier to interpret and more exciting. Those are located int he photoresist and introduction sections.

There were a few minor grammar issues that our reviewers identified and after a thorough edit by us we also found several grammatical errors. We made sure to try to catch as many as we could and correct them.

Overall, the review were very helpful. They pointed out several flaws to our page, as well as, supplied detailed guidance and suggestions. After considering what was proposed by our reviewers and making the corrections and adjustments to our page, we hope that our revised version is fit for publication.

PolymerChicken (talk)

Iriidium (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent Addition of Intricacy Tag

As someone who has only a passable understanding of chemistry, my area of expertise lying in anthropology, I found the recent addition of a tag suggesting the article should be simplified rather confusing, as I found it quite legible, overall. Perhaps a better solution would be to create a version of the article in Simple English? Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)