User:Chemicalbonding/Substitution reaction/Draco741 Peer Review

General info
ChemicalBonding
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

Lead already reflected the content the author added due to the fact that he mainly added and clarified information. The lead gives a very brief explanation of the entire articles with each section being mentioned at least one time. It is concise and well written, if new information is added the lead should be updated but it is informative enough.

Content:

The content is very relevant to the topic at hand. The majority of the information added is clarification information and addition of some new information. The pictures added were very useful in allowing a better understanding of the mechanism/process through which this is done. Something that should be mentioned in nucleophilic substitution is how the nucleophile can actually be the leaving group in some molecules an example being if a halogen attacks a tertiary alcohol.

Might want to mention what conditions aromatic substitution works best in. (Kind of extra information, could put it in but would also be fine if left out.)

Tone/Balance:

The tone in all of the information in the draft is neutral. Information is mostly just facts therefore it is hard to have a position on substitution reactions.

Sources & References:

Sources for first 2 changes in mechanisms are good. References for nucleophilic acyl substitution should be added, just one should be okay.

Organization:

The content added is easy to read, concise and efficient in delivering the information. The organization is done well, however if there is not going to be more information added to the substituted compounds section, the sentence could be moved to another section so that there is not another whole section containing just one sentence. The best place would most likely be in the lead.

Images and Media:

The images help understanding the information a lot. They help clarify and provide visual support for the information. A picture showing an example of aromatic nucleophilic substitution might be good but it is not necessarily needed. The captions for the images are well done and concise. Layout of the images is also done well.

Overall Impression:

In general, the article is readable by the target audience, a demographic that do not have university knowledge of chemistry. However, some of the language used should be changed to help understanding. Words such as carbocations, nucleophile, and electrophile should be explained or linked so that the audience can have quick access to the definitions. A brief explanation such as, "a carbon with a positive charge on it", for a carbocation. The use of pictures helps with the definitions but it can be hard to identify which parts of the reaction you are talking about in the pictures.

Overall, the edits are written well in order to be understood by a non-scientific community, and the content is concise and gives the information without bias.