User:AnaFlorescu/Bi4I4/Lipidmonolayer1 Peer Review

General info
AnaFlorescu
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Bismuth subhalides::Bismuth organometallic chemistry

Bismuth subhalides
The lead to the article provides a concise lead to its contents. I think having the title of the page bolded somewhere within the lead would be best, even if just for convention's sake. The framing of the article now much better reflects the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia which is great! The lead also compellingly describes all of the fascinating properties of bismuth subhalides.

Most of the sources used are from the past 1-2 decades, which is great. It seems like everything in the article should be at the frontier of the field. The content all feels very fitting. However, the ordering of the sections feels a bit strange. I think it might be better to break the overview into more sections, perhaps into "structure", "synthesis", and "calculations" whilst keeping the subsections.

The tone of the article doesn't seem biased towards any particular group's interpretation of the work, which is great. The writing flows well, and the article is easy to read. However, "as can be seen" should refer directly to the figure that you're referencing.

The images are well done. However, the ones by the subhalide complexes can be better integrated with the text such that it doesn't bleed into the "See Also" section. Also, the images could definitely be bigger. The last images is particularly hard to read without clicking into the image itself. The captions are very well done and really helped my understanding of the article.

Bismuth organometallic chemistry
The lead to the article doesn't flesh out the subject matter sufficiently, although this is understandable considering the fact that the original page was split in twain. Further editing should definitely focus on discussing some of the general reaction types that are present in this field.

The sources are slightly on the older side but still should be more than sufficient for a well-informed article. The writing is relatively easy to understand but some complexes may helped with formulas as they can be quite wordy. I think the term closo- should probably be explained in the article.

Like the previous article, this article didn't feel biased towards any source.

Is this line: "The mixed salts display increased air and moisture compared to the parental dimetallic salts and show Lewis acidity at the rhodium center.", missing the word sensitivity after moisture?

The images again were well done but they are really hard to read at the current size. Centering the images would also make the flow of the article better as the images in this article bleed significantly into the references.

Overall, very impressive work!