User:Luckytooth/Octahedral molecular geometry/Argoncarbon Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Luckytooth


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luckytooth/Octahedral_molecular_geometry?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Octahedral molecular geometry

Evaluate the drafted changes
I see that you have made changes to make the lead easier to read and to add more content to the isomerism section. However, the revisions are not non-trivial in my opinion. The changes to the lead arguable makes it harder to understand / flow less smoothly. The changes to the isomerism section does not add much more content. To improve the article, I suggest focusing on improving the references in the article as I can see many sections that lack any citation at all.

Lead:

The sentence "The shape of an octahedral molecule is an octahedron, hence the prefix octa" does not make sense since the prefix octa refers to the number 8, and your explanation does not involve the number 8 at all.

The perfect octahedral paragraph should proceed the "the term octahedral is used somehwat loosely" portion of the lead as you should talk about the original definition meaning before talking about the expanded definition.

The paragraph about Werner needs a citation.

To improve this section, I suggest condensing it into a more succinct paragraph and cut out any non-essential information.

Body:

In the isomerism section, a lot of subsections do not contain references at all. Reference should be added even if its the same one for a lot of them so readers can immediately know where to look.

The diastereogmer comment is does not exclusively apply to cis and trans isomers, so should maybe be moved to the beginning of the section. Also, I don't think the addition is very relevant.

For the cis and trans section, the term "mutually adjacent" is hard to understand, perhaps saying they are 90° to each other is better. Also the degree symbol (°) should be used, not a superscript o.