User:Alkemiya/User:Alkemiya/sandbox/Tetraphenylporphine Peer Review

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead of the article was formulated from scratch.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introduction can be refined to clarify whether ionic structures or a particular oxidation state of Ge is being discussed.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead broadly outlines the article's sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is of the appropriate length for this specialized topic (one paragraph).

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is all on target.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, there is a solid selection of literature from the last decade.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some more elaboration of the significance of the isocyanide complex?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, multiple viewpoints are considered (e.g. limiting resonance structures).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * See above.
 * 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, citations directly follow claims.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they are comprehensive.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are from the last decade or the last few years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, NBO and canonical MO images are provided together with synthesis and reactivity schemes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Captions are clear.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * For the most part, yes. The polygon count could be increased (computational time permitting) on the HOMO visualization.

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?
 * Yes, the article is supported by reviews that aggregate the primary source content.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * To my knowledge this provides substantial coverage.
 * 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, section headings and captions are clear.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes - although it might be enhanced by links to other Ge chemistry?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article has been brought into existence.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Great use of the supramolecular chemistry literature!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * If there are relevant comparisons that can be made to other tetrels, those would make the article very strong by highlighting systematic differences in the chemistry of Ge vs. C, Si... etc.
 * Is there any ligand-based structural relationship that explains whether the GeII lone pair is stereochemically active?

Overall evaluation
A very solid choice of topic that complements our earlier discussions of GeII. It is cool to see a full fledged article on a family of metalloid species - the emphasis on the role of supramolecular chemistry in isolating kinetically stable GeII also highlights an interesting theme that is not as present in other articles. After cleanup of some details and clarification of what is meant by the GeII "cation", this will be a great addition to Wikipedia.