User:Alkemiya/User:SWeng19/sandbox/Alkemiya Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Sweng19
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SWeng19/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
- The lead is a bit too short. I like that the sentence is easy to read and to understand, however you should try to give an overview of the other topics you will discuss in your article. Outline the interesting bonding features, and catalytic applications that you later describe in detail. Perhaps also add mention of the image associated of your lead paragraph, or add a discussion of the bonding formalisms.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
- I think you did a nice job surveying the literature, especially in the reactivity and applications section. Perhaps add a bit more discussion to your structure/electronics section so it is balanced with the reactivity.

- In the structure section, perhaps add a discussion of anion-cation distances to confirm that the anion is non-coordinating? It would be great to include the distances from the crystal structure to make this discussion more complete.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
- The following claim needs to have a supporting citation: "The lowest-unoccupied molecular orbital has mostly p-character and is centered on the boron atom"

- For the synthetic methods you mention, you mainly give one example of a paper using that particular method. Try to add more examples for each of the methods so the reader can see that these techniques are more generalized.

- You did a good job keeping a neutral/objective point of view.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
- Some of the references have errors in the date, they are marked with red text in your references section. I encountered this issue too with some of the automatically generated references, to fix it click on edit reference and manually enter the date of publication. For example, the publication date of your first reference is "1985-10" just manually change it to 1985.

- Some of the same references are listed more than once. For example, references 11, 23, 24 are all the same paper.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
- The organization is great overall. However, the following sentence from the synthesis section seems out of place, and could fit better in the reactivity section "Protonation of non-Lewis acidic oxazaborolidines results in the generation of borenium ions that can be used as enantioselective Diels-Alder catalysts."

- When you discuss the BH2NH3+ cation in the electronics section, it is not clear that the +0.66 charge you mention is on boron. Specify that this is the computed charge on the boron atom.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
- The reference number in some image caption does not match the reference number in the text referring to that image. For example, under the "Nucleophilic Dissociation" section the Koelle and Noeth paper is numbered as [8] while in the image caption it is [7].

- In the Electronics section, change the positioning of the two images so that they are not so close to each other.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
- The article meets the notability requirement, and has a fair survey of sources.

- I would add more links to relevant chemistry topics. For example, and links to reagents such as pyridine and triflic acid when you mention them. Add links to topics such as Lewis acids and HOMO/LUMO when these topics come up.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Overall evaluation
- Overall I think this is a good article. The content is mainly there, I made a few suggestions for what you could add. I think the two most important things to work on are: 1) Fixing the references section and 2) adding more to your lead paragraph.