User:Alkemiya/User:Tristan-Xin/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) Tristan-Xin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tristan-Xin/sandbox

Some grammar/wording suggestions:

-Change “Reactivities” section header to “Reactivity”

-Change "The first example of nontrigonal pnictogen compound" to "The first example of a nontrigonal pnictogen compound"

-Change "with phosphorus trihalide" to "with a phosphorus trihalide"

-Change "in NMR spectrums at ambient temperature" to "in ambient temperature NMR" or "in NMR spectra taken at ambient temperature"

-Change "the lone pair of electrons at the pnictogen atoms are localized in orbitals" to "the lone pair of electrons at the pnictogen atoms is localized in orbitals"

-Change "inertness towards an attack of benzyl bromide" to "inertness to benzyl bromide"

-Change "The p-type lone pair NBO shows a less than 2 electron occupancy" to "The p-type lone pair NBO has less than 2 electron occupancy"

-Change "oxidation state of +V" to "oxidation state of +5"

-Change " phosphorus compounds show a remarkable reactivity" to " phosphorus compounds show remarkable reactivity"

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
- Great lead paragraph, it captures the main topics of your article in a few words. I would suggest one edit: in the last sentence rather than saying "potential to provide unique nonmetal platforms for bond cleavage ", keep it general and say it provides unique non-metal reactivity.

- Consider explaining the significance of the way you drew the lone pair and orbital in the first image.

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
- In the structure and properties section, consider adding a discussion of steric strain (and maybe measured/computer strain energies for these compounds) before you say the structure confirms the steric strain.

- You can delete this sentence "The focus of the following discussion is directed towards three particular aspects of their reactivities."

- Consider adding a discussion of how nontrigonal phosphorous ligands for metals behave differently from traditional phosphine ligands in your last paragraph for the reactivity section.

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 article has a neutral 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
- References are formatted well, the links work.

- You draw from a good variety of literature.

- You may want to consider citing relevant papers in the image captions for your chemdraw figures to direct the reader to where those reactions were reported.

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 good, but please see the suggested grammar edits I listed at the top of the peer review form.

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
- I like the orbital visualizations you made. Consider adding a chemdraw structure for the molecules you use in your orbital visuals, as the orbitals make it a bit hard to tell what is going on in the molecule.

- The images are visually appealing, and laid out well across the article.

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. You draw on a good variety of sources.

- I would add links to traditional trigonal pnictogen compounds with trigonal pyramidal geometry to help the reader appreciate the differences associated with these nontraditional molecules.

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
- I think the article is great. I especially like the images you made. I would just work on revising grammar and wording.