User:Lm4p3y6/Electron counting/Pelicanchem Peer Review

General info
Lm4p3y6
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lm4p3y6/Electron_counting?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Electron counting

Evaluate the drafted changes
As far as I can tell you've left the lead section unchanged, which is fine, I don't think you've added anything that actually warrants changing it. Less is more and whatnot. I think the lead is good as is, it clearly explains the topic and although it doesn't explicitly outline the sections it's close enough for my preferences, any more explicit would be unwieldy. If I had to suggest changes - the last paragraph could likely cut the last sentence down without losing much.

For the content you've made only a couple changes, fair enough, the content added reasonable to me. However I'd suggest rewording your changes:

"It assumes each bond is equally split between two atoms."

"It assumes unequal sharing of electrons in the bond. The more electronegative atom in the bond gains electron lost from the less electronegative atom."

I don't like that these sentences start with 'it', they're weird sentences ('it' not specified in sentences). The sentences would sound better and also fit in better with the rest of the list if this was reworded to conform better with the other points.

Neutral counting assumes each bond is equally split between two atoms.

''Ionic counting assumes unequal sharing of electrons in the bond. The more electronegative atom in the bond gains electron lost from the less electronegative atom.''

Or perhaps:

This method assumes each bond is equally split between two atoms.

''This method assumes unequal sharing of electrons in the bond. The more electronegative atom in the bond gains electron lost from the less electronegative atom.''

Otherwise good additions, for what it's worth I don't think you missed adding anything and the content is well organized.

You've also added an example and it's well justified. But I beg of you - change the table - or at least add some better headers to each row. A column that just has d8, 4 e- x 2. and 1 e- x 2 may be clear to you and I, but I can't imagine a high school student would be able to deduce what this column is supposed to show. Similarly the fourth row is entirely empty except for one cell, I recognize this is the sum, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be labeled! The table is a good addition as long as these minor things are fixed.

The captions are great, only change would be to reword:

"In the neutral counting method..." to  "The neutral counting method treats..."  similar for other caption.

The method isn't a box or room, seems odd to use 'in'.

I concur with your plan to add an image for the example, best of luck finding a replacement for chemdraw.

For references, I think the new example you added should be referenced. It doesn't look like you added any new references, although you did fix a link for one in the Wikipedia page which is broken. However if I were you I'd remove that reference altogether. The MLXZ reference leads to a university group website - not ideal for citation, I'm sure you can find a better replacement. I briefly checked the other 2 references and they seem fine, they're both fairly recent, numbered, and reliable.

Lastly, the original article has this:

It is usually considered easier especially for low-valent transition metals.[ citation needed]

I think you should add a citation for this claim since Wikipedia seems to think it needs one.

I appreciate you merged a bunch of links, makes for better accessibility of the article.

Although I've been nitpicky and dramatic here, overall I think you've done a great job adding to the article. Especially the example, I really like that you choose it to show a case where two methods yield the same result (just fix the table please). The article is accessible to the target audience and sections are organized in a reasonable order. Another strong point is you've been careful to avoid unfair bias, both your additions and the original article don't have any.

As for the writing style - It's hard to make a strong judgement based on such a small sample, but overall I have few complaints, just some grammatical nitpicks.

I think the most work still needs to be done with adding and updating the references, as is I'd say the article only has 2 good references and there are several places it could use more.

Your edits certainly improved the thoroughness of the article, good work.

Fix the table.

Cheers

Respond to peer review
Hello Pelicanchem,

Thank you for your time and valuable feedback on the initial draft. I have made adjustments based on your suggestions.

I agree with you that the lead section is clear and concise enough, it introduces the topic briefly and outlines all the sections the article mentioned below.

Regarding your suggestions on rewording the two sentences on the assumptions of the two electron counting methods, I agree with you on starting the sentence with "it" was a bit vague. I reworded those two sentences the way you suggested.

For the tables in the examples added, I concur that the table, without the defined catogories for each column, could confuse some audience without background knowledge in coordination chemistry / introductory inorganic chemitry. I've also made some adjustments on the captions and include more detailed steps to walk through the process of summing up the electron counts in both methods. On top of the transition metal complex example, I've included the water molecules example as well, since electron counting does not only encompass d-block complexes. I've managed to create a clearer figure for the RuCl2(bpy)2 complex.

Lastly, for the references, I agree with you that this article lacks some good / valid references. I have added a reference for the part where it stated "citation needed". I've removed the citation that did not work and added 2 more citations for this article.

I truly appreciate your time and input on reviewing my work. All your comments are valid suggestions and have made my article more accessible to the broader audience.