User:Alkemiya/User:SWeng19/sandbox/Tristan-Xin 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 briefly but clearly introduces the topic of this article and is pretty concise. However, the Lead is a little short and does not describe the major sections. I would recommend that outlines of the major content in the article be added, as well as a discussion about the graph associated with the Lead.

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
The content is closely related to the topic, and the content is, to my best knowledge, up-to-date, especially for the reactivity and applications section. For the synthesis section, the "Other Methods" part seems a little short and can be further supplemented by recent literature. In the "Nucleophilic Dissociation" part, tricoordinate boron oxo compounds are also shown to be able to undergo this type of reaction. The first paragraph of the "Electronic" section is kind of confusing. Is the +0.66 natural charge on boron?

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 content is fairly neutral and does not seem biased. The viewpoints are well-presented, while I would suggest that some parts be further supported by more sources, such as the "Hydroboration" and "Polymerization Catalysis".

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
The article is supported by several secondary sources including review articles. They reflect most of the current available literature on this topic. Some of references are used more than once, but are numbered separately, I would advise that the same reference have only one number.

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 article is well-organized. As far as I am aware, there is no obvious error present in the article. However, I do suggest that "Structure" and "Electronics" sections be merged into one section, because these two sections seem closely connected.

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 images are well-rendered and are helpful to understand the topic. All images used therein are the author's own work, thus adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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
This article is supported by several review articles. To the best of my knowledge, this article accurately represents most of the available literature on this topic. It also follows the patterns of other similar articles and is divided into several sections that are common for similar articles. The article is not linked to other articles yet, but it will be once we put the actual page online. In addition, I would suggest that more hyperlinks be added to the article when existing topics such as sigma bonding and HOMO/LUMO 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
The article is overall well-written. The content covers most aspects of the topic and is well-organized. The main improvements I suggest would be to add slightly more content to the Lead and fix the reference section.