User:Draco741/Acyl halide/Publicscale Peer Review

General info
Jaimin - @Draco741
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Draco741/new_sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acyl_halide
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello Jaimin,

Below is my peer review for your draft for changes to the Wikipedia article - Acyl Halide.

Lead

N/A - There is no change to the lead for the Acyl Halide article in your sandbox draft. I look forward to your changes. I think the current lead is quite concise, but some context (e.g. where these functional groups can be find) can be added.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes.

- Gilman/Grignard reagents and LAH are valid reactants with Acyl Halides.

- I agree with you that "lachrymatory" is a grandstanding description.

- Explanation of hydrogen halide.

- The elaboration to explain that Acyl Halide itself is corrosive is good; the Nucleophilic Acyl Substitution explanation is good.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

There do not seem to be new or up-to-date info for the original article nor the sandbox draft.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

- You can definitely add an image or two to showcase these chemicals.

- Can you explain the reagents (Grignard/Gilman) just very briefly for the general public? No one with a high school education knows them. I think simply by using chemical structures, they could understand a little better.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, I do not think this article has anything to do with subjective subjects.

Tone/Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?

The tone is quite neutral. I think the added explanations are needed.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- You can explain the added reagents more.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources/References

Unfortunately, the references on the sandbox seem to be from the original article. I do not see any new links or references added to anything. Citing would help back your content.

Organisation


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

- I think "aromatic ketone" is more descriptive than "aromatic compound" (Reactions section). Aromatic compound is too general and is not the precise product of Friedel-Crafts Acylation.

- The added Gilman/Grignard reagents part is a good touch.

- I like the simplification done to the term "lachrymatory".

- Although I agree that "hydrohalic and organic acids" from the original article is extravagant and poorly worded, your explanation of  hydrogen halide being "HX" is, in my opinion, a little excessive and does not quite get to point: hydrogen halide is a strong acid that is dangerous.

- I like your added explanation using the mechanism Nucleophilic Acyl Substitution; I do not like the statement "Most acyl halides are also corrosive and can cause severe burns to the skin and severely damage the eyes.". It can be written and structured better.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Gilman reagents, not "Gilmans reagent". Also do not use multiple "and" for a single sentence.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

No - please consider organising in sub-headings.

Overall


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

At this point, the sandbox draft improves the original article very slightly. I like some of the added explanations.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

I enjoy the explanations you made; the Gilman/Grignard/LAH are good examples to give different products.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Please explain the reagents you added. They require better explanations - Grignard Reagent adding twice to give a tertiary alcohol is not trivial or intuitive. Also, I think adding LAH twice to acyl halide should yield a primary alcohol, not a secondary alcohol.

Please consider adding citations to your explanations and examples.

Please refer to other suggestions in the Organisation and Content sections.

Sincerely,

Winston - @Publicscale