User:Ccustodi/Grignard reaction/1597 CE Peer Review

General info
CCustodi and Toady03
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Grignard reaction draft
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Grignard reaction

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Content


 * You might want to consider fixing the formatting on the main article page when you make it half screen, as there is a large blank space
 * The first section under the other reactions discussing the definition of the Grignard reaction feels out of place and slightly biased, especially when it says "a reputable graduate level text." This title of the section is Grignard reagents not Grignard reaction
 * Examples of Grignard reagents all seem relevant
 * More of an explanation for each of the Grignard reagents might help to explain them with the figures

Writing


 * These sentences should be combined or the otherwise removed. Having otherwise at the start of a sentence makes it hard to understand what is being referenced: "The Grignard reaction must be run under anhydrous conditions. Otherwise, the reaction will fail because the Grignard reagent will act as a base rather than a nucleophile to pick up a labile proton rather than attacking the electrophilic site."

Images


 * Make sure that when you place the new figures they are beside the corresponding texts and not in the middle of the text

Sources


 * The formatting of the sources looks different. Is the "^ ab" at the start typical?
 * Sources are relevant