Talk:Phosphetene

Framing of the article
The article is relatively straightforward to read, although some reactions are a bit hard to visualize without a figure associated with it. Some reactions would be easier to understand if the particular reagent was written, instead of just the type of reagent. The sentence structure gets a bit repetitive with the repeated use of "In [year], ...", especially since that section isn't expressly titled as a historical section. Was there any other information on the applications to OLED devices? Overall, the article shows the breadth of the search for sources, and it does a good job at balancing the works. Lipidmonolayer1 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Added figures and reworded repeated use of in year ... OneMustImagineAGradStudentHappy (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review 12/18/23
Leads

The first paragraph is the leads in this article. It presents the overview of the topic discussed in the page in concise manner. Brief history and general context along with applications are discussed. There are information that is not discussed in later article and concise enough to engage the audience.

Content

The content discussed in this article is relevant to the article by including nomenclature, synthesis, and several reactivity studies. They all contributes for a better understanding of topic of phosphetene for readers who are not familiar with. Examples provided in the synthesis section are articles in about 20 years ago, which might address an issue of outdated information. However, it is partially solved by adding a review article of phosphetene in 2021 as a reference. Thus, I do not think this is a major issue, but I prefer including a recent article if there is one. I also prefer more explanation about why reactions that are given in the article are important to describe your chose topic. This page does not deal with equity gap, so there is no problem on this perspective.

Tone and Balance

This article does not have biased opinion on any types of data. The information is delivered in cohesive and neutral tone. This is supported by providing multiple reference to neutralize one opinion in certain article to another.

Source and Referencing

There are decent amount of reference to support the idea, which is good. They are also from liable primary/secondary source (scientific journal). The link does work.

Organization

The flow is smooth, and it is easy to read. There was no major grammatical errors that I have seen so far.

Image and Media

I have a confirmation from the author to include several reaction scheme later. Other than that, I do not think any major issue for not take advantage of using figure and media to visualize discussion in this page.

For new article

There are several review article to summarize phosphetene, which correspond to the secondary or tertiary sources. There are many links to other Wikipedia articles to show the connection between the new article and other ideas.

Overall

This is well-written article and easy to follow the idea. By adding more figures and explaining importance in each reaction, the idea will be deliver better. Hienn211 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Added figures. OneMustImagineAGradStudentHappy (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Main Group Chemistry
— Assignment last updated by MG4cats (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)