User:FlyingSpacePenguin/be bold

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Spqr_mc (Yuxuan Cai)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

No. It describes the class of compounds phosphiranes but is missing an introduction to the various sections that follow.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise, but adding more content would be helpful to be a more fully-fleshed introduction to the page.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes.

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

A section discussing the general properties of phosphiranes may be helpful.

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

No.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes.

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

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.

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

No.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.

''Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)''

Upon cursory review, yes.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.

Are the sources current?

Yes.

''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?''

The sources come from a diverse spectrum of authors and journals.

''Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)''

''Check a few links. Do they work?''

There are no embedded links in the wikipedia page.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:

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

Yes.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

Yes.

Are images well-captioned?

Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes.

For New Articles Only[edit]
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?

Yes.

''How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?''

Yes.

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?

Yes.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

No.

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:

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

The article is well-written and covers many of the important aspects of this class of compounds, including their synthesis and reactivity.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The content is well-cited and presents a good review-style article about the reactions used to obtain phosphiranes and how they can be used.

How can the content added be improved?


 * adding links would be helpful to add links to relevant pages to help connect to other pages in the Wikipedia system
 * more details on why phosphiranes are studied/why people are interested in them would be nice--there is a brief discussion about their interesting geometry in the "Structure" section, but having this more explicitly described would be nice
 * there are some claims (such as "there is no known phosphiranium salt with the phosphirane structure protonated on the phosphorus atom") that are missing citations
 * a section discussing applications would be nice to have

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ChloroCatBench (Christie Choi)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ChloroCatBench/N-Heterocyclic Olefins
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N-heterocyclic olefins
 * N-heterocyclic olefins

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:

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

Yes, new lead.

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

Yes. It describes what N-heterocyclic olefins are and what makes them interesting.

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

Yes, its final sentence does this.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

There is some mention of names as part of the history in the second sentence that is not covered elsewhere.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The added content is relevant.

Is the content added up-to-date?

The content seems up-to-date.

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

Based on cursory review, the content appears sufficient.

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

It does not deal with an equity gap or a historically underrepresented population or topic.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes.

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

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.

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

No.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

The work seems well-cited and well-organized.

''Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)''

Yes.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes--the sources are from primary and review literature on the topic.

Are the sources current?

Yes.

''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?''

It appears to come from a variety of journals and authors.

''Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)''

Not particularly.

''Check a few links. Do they work?''

Yes. The missing/broken links to pages are to people and professors that will likely have a page in the future, or where it would make sense for them to have a wikipedia page.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:

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

Yes.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

Yes.

Are images well-captioned?

Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes.

For New Articles Only[edit]
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?

Yes. There are a variety of secondary sources that support the written material.

''How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?''

I don't know how exhaustive the source list is, but it does seem to cover a wide range of topics on the subject.

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?

Yes.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes.

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:

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

Yes.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The content is well-cited and presents a good review-style article about the reactions used to obtain N-heterocyclic olefins and how they can be used.

How can the content added be improved?


 * some more images and reaction schemes at the beginning of the reactivity section would be nice--since other sections have more images
 * "C_exo" in the Chemdraws is a little small and hard to read in the lead
 * the section on organocatalysis seems a little brief and could be more fully described
 * Metal ligation section text could be better organized -> i.e. saying that it is still limited for main group metal chemistry, but then going straight to transition metals