I like your explanation of the word origin (with the latin bit) at the beginning as well as the extensive use of hyperlinks to better allow the reader to explore related subjects. It feels very much like a Wikipedia article in the opening.
In terms of critique I feel that the History/Background bit could go earlier on in the article as a sort of general background to the phenomenon before discussing it in depth. Furthermore, I feel that the tables in the article of recent research and other applications are a bit less than optimal -- the information within them might be better served as text as opposed to tables. While the tables are efficient in conveying the information I found myself asking why the information was presented in a table while reading the article. Lastly, the future research section feels like it could be a little larger, and you have a lot of unused or misplaced references hanging around in this paragraph. Apeloza ( talk) 00:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the article was clearly written and I thought your use of tables and bolding words was beneficial. However, after bolding "percolating clusters" the first time, it is probably not necessary to bold it or italicize it any further. The tables which include a list of researchers and their studies is very helpful and great for further reading on the topic. However, if you were to hyperlink each article if they are available online, that would make getting to them a little easier. It looks a little off that the first subheading (Percolating Cluster) is smaller than the subsequent headings (History & Background and Current Research). Perhaps you could make a larger subheading before Percolating Cluster. Otherwise, it was a great article and was quite informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpennin ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I like your explanation of the word origin (with the latin bit) at the beginning as well as the extensive use of hyperlinks to better allow the reader to explore related subjects. It feels very much like a Wikipedia article in the opening.
In terms of critique I feel that the History/Background bit could go earlier on in the article as a sort of general background to the phenomenon before discussing it in depth. Furthermore, I feel that the tables in the article of recent research and other applications are a bit less than optimal -- the information within them might be better served as text as opposed to tables. While the tables are efficient in conveying the information I found myself asking why the information was presented in a table while reading the article. Lastly, the future research section feels like it could be a little larger, and you have a lot of unused or misplaced references hanging around in this paragraph. Apeloza ( talk) 00:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the article was clearly written and I thought your use of tables and bolding words was beneficial. However, after bolding "percolating clusters" the first time, it is probably not necessary to bold it or italicize it any further. The tables which include a list of researchers and their studies is very helpful and great for further reading on the topic. However, if you were to hyperlink each article if they are available online, that would make getting to them a little easier. It looks a little off that the first subheading (Percolating Cluster) is smaller than the subsequent headings (History & Background and Current Research). Perhaps you could make a larger subheading before Percolating Cluster. Otherwise, it was a great article and was quite informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpennin ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)