User:Colleenmcaloon/Methylidynetricobaltnonacarbonyl/Karamoulton Peer Review

General info
Colleenmcaloon
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
I think the introductory sentence is concise and descriptive. It could provide a more detailed outline of the aims of the article/mention the sections that will be covered. I think maybe some of the historical information from the "Discovery and Synthesis" section would be useful to give the reader a little more context of when this was developed- like maybe just say first synthesized in 1950. I know the structure is right there, but the chemical formula might also be good to include. I don't know if it will automatically add from the old page, but the table with names/identifiers/properties would also be good to include here.

Content
Discovery and Synthesis:

- This section is good! I think it could benefit from

1) a description of the original Markby and Wender synthetic route, if known. Why couldn't they obtain a absolute structure?

2) A figure for the Bor synthesis, if that is the most commonly used/best one

3) X-ray structure, if available.

Some things that might not be super necessary/relevant:

1) mention of purification via column/recrystallization

It would also be interesting to know if there are any more recent developments in the synthesis/any improvements.

Structure and Bonding:

- I think you can remove the citations in parenthesis since they are cited in the bibliography?

- How does the 13C chemical shift of the substituent carbon support the electron sink theory- maybe just a little bit more detail here.

- Maybe include the chemical formula of the parent molecular ion to be most clear.

- I might just be an overly visual learner but I think a figure to demonstrate the isolobal analogy part would be helpful.

- The section describing the molecular orbitals is very clearly written.

Reactivity

- I think the mention of how it the complex is destroyed by CO pressure might fit better somewhere in this section than in the synthesis

- The last sentence in the first section could be clarified- how exactly does the structure cause this reactivity.

- Figures for the Seyferth/other reactions could be helpful.

- I like that you concluded with catalysis applications and more recent work.

Overall the content is relevant, well-researched, and up to date. If there are any other more recent significant developments, that would be good to include.

Sources and References
A variety of historical sources were utilized. If there are any available, some more recent literature might be useful to see what people are doing with the complex today. DOI links don't work but I think that is the nature of the older papers because I had the same issue. I think the content accurately reflects the content of the sources I looked at. This page certainly made it easier to understand the complex than referring to the papers.

Organization
Overall, I think the organization was very clear and straightforward. There are some stray sentences (usually at the end of a given section) that seem a little unrelated to the rest of the section/abrupt and might fit better somewhere else, but that could just be personal preference. There are a few grammatical and spelling errors.

Images and Media
Some more chemdraws to visualize the different synthesis/reactions could be helpful to readers. I think going through and linking some of the words to their corresponding wikipedia page would be a nice final touch. The existing images are well captioned and helpful.