User:Alkemiya/User:Alkemiya/sandbox/Joppenhe1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Alkemiya
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Alkemiya/sandbox

Notes


 * In Figure 1, the first word is "Structure", not "Strucutre" and "x-ray" should be "X-ray". I suggest making the vdW balls in this figure to be slightly bigger for aesthetic reasons.
 * The first sentence is confusing, is the whole compound +2 or is the germanium atom +2?
 * The second sentence is out of place and should be pushed down to another more specific section.
 * The second to last sentence in the into has "are interesting". Wikipedia articles should not be subjective. In the same sentence "s orbital" should be "s-orbital".
 * In the second sentence of "History" there should be a comma after "Later in 2008" and "nonmetallic" should be "non-metallic".
 * In the last sentence of "History", the references should be put in increasing order.
 * In "Synthesis", there is an extra space before "Ge(II) cryptand[2.2.2]"
 * In "Ge(II) cryptand[2.2.2]", in the figure, the products should be on the same line as the reactants and arrow or the arrow at least point to the products. As well, the negative charge on the OTf fragment is hard to see. In the caption, the explicit reference is not needed if the [6] is given. There is also a space between "Ge" and "(II)" where there should not.
 * In "Ge(II) cryptand[2.2.2]", "x-ray" should be "X-ray". "The products obtained from this reaction are summarized below" is an unclear sentence. You probably do not need to add reference [6] after each sentence, only after the last sentence in the paragraph.
 * In "Ge(II) crown ethers", there is a missing space after the second sentence between "[5]" and "Trimethylsilyl". The word "Interestingly" is used again in this paragraph, while the article should be objective. The word "sandwhich" is used rather than "sandwich". The word "raman" should be "Raman".
 * In the "Ge(II) crown ethers" figure, the negative charge on "OTf" is hard to see.
 * In "Ge(II) carbene complex", "reatment" should be "treatment".
 * In "Ge(II) 2,6-dimethylphenyl isocyanide complex", put "scheme given below" in parenthesis. The second sentence is unclear. The word "x-ray" should be "X-ray".
 * In the "Ge(II) 2,6-dimethylphenyl isocyanide complex" figure, the isoxyanide should have the + and - charges on the C and N in the reactant.
 * In "Structure and Bonding", the title should be "Structure and bonding". The word "interest" is used in the first sentence, but the tone should be objective. I suggest rewording the second and third sentence as it sound a bit awkward and unrelated to the wikipedia article. Possibly "The geometry of such Ge(II) dications complexes cannot be predicted by VSEPR theory alone due to stereochemically inactive lone pairs (also known as the inert pair effect)."
 * In "Cryptand and crown ethers", "differing fro the expected covalency typical" is more accurately stated as "differing from the mainly covalent character expected". This is because "covalency" and "covalent" have slightly different meanings.
 * In "Carbenes and isocyanides", the first sentence does not make sense. An interaction cannot be described as more covalent because it is more covalent. The sentence starting with "This suggests..." has the word "perhaps" twice in it; there should not be speculation in wikipedia articles. "Natural population analysis (a computational technique)" should not have "a computational technique". In the same same sentence, charge is given as 1+ and -1. The sign should come before the digit.
 * In the "Carbenes and isocyanides" figure, the formal charges have circles around them, however this has not been the convention in any of the other figures nor in the charge of compounds in the top right of the same figure. When there is a 2+, it is also strange to only circle the +, I suggest not circling anything. In the second figure (visualization of HOMO), can you replace the static image with a .gif of the molecule rotating, it would help visualization of the distorted tetrahedral structure.
 * In "Reactivity", "lewis acids" should be "Lewis acids". The first two sentences do not flow from one to the next. The word "x-ray" should be "X-ray".
 * I suggest linking to the Organogermanium compound page in the See Also.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence can be improved. See notes above.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * See notes above
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * There is at least one review article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * See notes above.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * See notes above.