User:Bullett00/Activation Strain Model/Jdk22 Peer Review

General info
Bullett00
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bullett00/Activation Strain Model
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead - The lead does a good job of setting up the activation strain model, and most of the suggestions I have are quick grammar fixes. The first sentence is a really good introduction, but "potential energy curves of a function of reaction coordinate" doesn't make sense to me and I think you might have meant "as a function". I think if you are going to make any larger changes, I would potentially add in a quick overview of the various sections that you'll cover later.

Content - The content seems relevant and up to date to me. I did find a Nature protocols paper from 2020 talking about the activation strain model if that would be a helpful addition, but it seemed to mostly be a how to guide. I think you explained the theory very clearly and made it easily understandable. My only content concern is that the warning about the single point energy calculations seems a little out of place. I think it is making a very relevant point that should be included, but I also think you could probably condense it a little bit and add it into another section (possibly theory?).

Tone - Unbiased voice, maybe not the most controversial topic I have ever read about.

Sources/References - The major issue here is that references 2 and 8 are the same paper. Outside of that, the sources seem thorough and relevant.

Organization - As mentioned above, I think there is a typo in the first sentence. I think the theory section was very nicely put together. My suggestion would be to rename the select application section to something a little more descriptive. For the equations in this section, putting the [1] etc. in front of the equations will make things a little clearer. Also reaction 4 in this section doesn't look quite right at the moment I think there was a typo in there somewhere. You might also want to consider moving the figure up a little bit more, right now it seems like it is corresponding to the single point warning.

Figures - The figure is helpful and well captioned.

New Article Requirements - This article meets notability requirements and seems well sourced. There are links to many other articles, I think you could probably add more (e.g. HOMO/LUMO) but it isn't overly necessary.