Memorandum

To: From: Date: Re:

Cecelia Musselman Vy Nguyen 12/4/2012 Caleb Donnellys Unit 3 Article

Summary
The authors article discusses quartz fiber, high-purity glass rope that possesses many properties favorable in engineering applications. Quartz fiber is more durable than glass fiber, chemically stable, non-conducting, and hydrophobic. Because of these properties, they show potential in chemical and material engineering. However, quartz fiber is also very costly to produce. Regardless, they have been targeted in stealth, naval, and aerospace technology research due to their favorable characteristics. Scientists are also hoping to enhance the properties of quartz fiber through nanotechnology and chemical modification.

Major Points
The strongest characteristic of this article is its readability. I found it easy to understand and believe that it is accessible to a large audience. While still maintaining a professional tone, most sections manage to explain the information clearly. However, I did think the naming section was a little confusing, and perhaps unnecessary. The public may not need to know how quartz fibers are named. The opening section, however, is particularly strong. Next, I thought that the organization could use some improvement. Several Wiki articles have a large table to the side with the topic, a photo, and a quick run-down of the most important characteristics. (For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachite.) It may be possible to put summarize the information in the table and some of the imformation from Other Facts into a sidebar. Also, it could be a good idea to break applications into multiple sections by application type. However, the article is very well-linked and well-cited. Finally, I noticed moments of non-neutrality within the article. Quartz fiver is a very strong candidate for material engineering. This phrasing seems to imply the authors opinion that quartz fibers are the way of the future. The author should check for other moments of biased phrasing.

Minor Points
In the second sentence, long-continuous is misspelled as long-continous. Also, I found that the opening sentence was a little long. It could work in the authors benefit to split that sentence into two.