User:FlyingSpacePenguin/Alkylidene Ketenes/ChloroCatBench Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing FlyingSpacePenguin's wikipedia page on alkylidene ketenes.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * I think the lead is concise and informative and summarizes your article well!

Content


 * Each section is very meaty, and I like that you have a short description before each figure to explain the reaction.
 * I like that you review all the different syntheses and reactions that alkylidene ketenes can undergo.
 * The figures also help readers understand better.
 * I also really liked the properties section, and how you referenced different studies that analyzed the structure of alkylidene ketenes.

Tone and balance


 * The article is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and references


 * You incorporate a large and diverse scope of papers that include past work and current work. Your sources are thorough and reliable, and you accurately reflect what the sources say.
 * Some of your footnotes have check-date errors, but that should be an easy fix.
 * I think you forgot to add a footnote for the propadienone structure figure and the decarbonylation figure.

Organization


 * The article is well-organized and divided into appropriate sections. Each section is well-written.
 * A grammer error: The most common synthesis for substituted alkylidene ketenes is via the the thermolysis of an alkylidene derivative of Meldrum's acid.[6] There were some run-on sentences that the other peer review explains too.

Images and media


 * I think it's very helpful that you have figures/schemes for each reaction you talk about.
 * The chemdraws look great!

For new articles


 * The article looks great! It meets the notability requirements, follows the patterns of other similar articles, and has a long list of sources. You can also add a "See Also" section at the end linking it to the carbon suboxide page.

Overall impressions


 * Content is very informative and organized, and a fun read! You reference a lot of sources, and your figures support that.
 * I think tidying up the footnotes articles will help.