User:Firebirdrebirth/Pi backbonding/AFakeDrummer Peer Review

General info
Firebirdrebirth
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has been slightly updated to provide more information about transition metal.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

''The lead contains an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. It got updated and went a little more in depth of describing pi back bonding.''


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

''The lead does not truly include a brief description of the major sections. Maybe making a sort of a thesis sentence could be good to get the readers to anticipate what to learn.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content added is relevant due to talking about organic compounds and how they do pi back bonding.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

''All of the content with references are up-to-date! (All of them are around 2010s).''


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

The addition adds to one of the sections of the article that did not have much information to begin with.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

''The content added is neutral. It adds more information about what metal-alkene and metal-alkyne pi backbonding happens. Since it talks about different possibilities, it loses a bit of neutrality which is understandable as it says which compounds are better.''

Sources and References
''All the sources are current and they all seem to derive nicely from the sources. Only one source, [6], is hidden behind a paywall so it might be better to see if there is a way to go around it or find another source.''

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

''The content written feels a little off. It does not come off as clear, and I had to read the paragraph a couple of times to understand. Perhaps adding a picture if possible and/or changing the sentence;''

This electron transfer (i) strengthens the metal–ligand bond and (ii) weakens the C–C bonds within the ligand.

''I don't think it is necessary to add (i)/(ii). Perhaps a better way of describing it could be just removing it or altering the sentence without including it.''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The image is well defined, and it gives a better understanding on the concept of pi back bonding.


 * Are images well-captioned?

The images added are well-captioned.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

''Adding images that correspond with the article was a good touch. Removing and clarifying the Lead is a good idea as it is more clear and streamlined to the average viewer.''


 * How can the content added be improved?

''Changing the flow of the paragraph of Metal-alkene and metal-alkyne should be considered to better understand the content. Trying to find a reference to replace [6] is recommended. Removing (i)/(ii) across the article should improve the flow.''

-- AFakeDrummer

AFakeDrummer (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)