User:Nanonaninano/sandbox


 * Peer Review**

1)Does the title capture a thematic area of materials science appropriate for an encyclopedic Wikipedia site? Are there related sites the author’s have not linked to so far? Provide list.

MOF's for catalysis is a good title as the article specifically talks about catalysis by MOF's and there already is a site on MOF's. However, it would be worthwhile considering the some mechanics of good writing practice.

-Place the acronym MOF right after the first introduction of the phrase Metal-organic frame works. -Make sure not to repeat the full form of the MOFs too many times. Once you have introduced the full form of MOF's in the beginning (it would be just good to stick to the acronym as the whole purpose of creating acronyms is reducing the volume of the text.

Although "in-text" links are provided, it would be nice to add a "see also" section and provide links to the most related pages such as,

Metal-organic framework, Zeolites, Mesoporous materials, Chirality, Chiral synthesis/asymmetric synthesis, Knoevenagel condensation, Epoxidation, Transesterification,

Also it would be good to remove the "red links" - the links that do not exits. It is disturbing to see too many reds in the text.

2)Is the general public summary written at the appropriate level? Does it effectively capture the subject of the review?

I cannot completely agree that first paragraph of the article is written at a general public level, although it does capture the subject of the review. Rather, the "significance" section which comes towards the end of the article does a better job at this. The authors can merge the significance section into the first paragraph. To lead readers into the depth of the topic more effectively, it will be helpful to divide the first section into smaller paragraphs. There are many sentences that seem redundant and wordy in the first paragraph.

For example, how about beginning with something like this,

''Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are a subset of coordination polymers that are well-ordered, crystalline, and porous. The high surface area, tunable porosity, and catalytically active metal sites or functional groups makes them especially useful as catalysts. Catalysts are used to manufacture the majority of the most used chemicals in the world. The study of MOFs for catalysts has only recently begun with the majority of the work achieved during the last few years. The set geometry of the MOFs internal framework allows for their use as size selective catalysts. Previous work in this area was achievable only using zeolites, an "older" group of porous materials.''

In the second paragraph the authors can proceed by talking about benefits of MOFs over zeolites as catalysts (in which I think the authors have done a good job. Just use simpler language and remove redundancies.)

3)Does the Background and Significance explain to the reader why this area is important? Does it provide sufficient background to place the topic in the context of the field of materials science?

An easy to understand section under background and significance is lacking. As mentioned above, dividing the first paragraph into parts will be better. First section - precise and general introduction of MOF and use as catalyst. Section section - Why MOFs can be better as catalysts compared to zeolites and other porous materials.

5)Do the figures add substantially to enhancing the explanation of the topic? Are there key figures missing that you believe would be useful? If you recommend changes, be specific.

There are not enough figures. There should be at least one figure that is representative of an MOF (does not have to be a TEM or SEM image. The authors can draw a cartoon of MOF). A table of metals that have been used in MOFs and are primarily responsible for catalysis and the types of reactions catalyzed can be helpful. Is it possible to make the figure for the schematic diagram of MOF catalysis a little bigger?

6)Are there major papers in the field missing in the references? Be specific. Reference section is comprehensive and the links provided in the reference section makes it easier to go into the actual article. However, the "in-text" reference in the first paragraph is missing. Although, the authors provide the reference numbers at the end of the paragraph, it would be better to have the reference directly after the information especially the section under "Design of MOF for catalysis" has not been properly referenced.

7)Overall, is the language used effective and easily understood. Flag all confusing sections and/or offer suggestions for rewording.

No. The authors need to do a lot of polishing on the language. Especially the introduction section and the section "the design of MOF for catalysis". There is lot of overlap between this section and the sections under "MOFs for achiral catalysis". I dont really find a difference between the titles "Catalysis with metal ions or metal clusters" and "Metals in MOFs as Catalytic Sites". The first few sentences in the latter does a better job at telling how metals can act as catalysts in the MOFs. It would be more useful to move them into the design section. Since the title "design of MOF for catalysis" gives the impression that the authors would talk about the structural features of MOFs responsible for catalysis. It could be more useful to talk about points like how the structural placement of metals/ligands in the MOF play a role in catalysis.

I think the authors should be more organized on what needs to be specifically discussed under each heading or may be even reconsider the organisation of the " the design of ... " section.

Also, especially in this section the full forms are lacking. For eg, when first talking about two dimensional MOFs, the short form 2D should be expanded. Similarly, bpy, btapa, TPHP, bdc. Also I was confused what does Brøstes mean? Was it supposed to be Brønsted ?

The subsections under the "Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs) for Achiral Catalysis" are well written. They are well referenced and provide full forms as well. Adding an short introductory paragraph that talks briefly about what achiral catalysis means would aid readers to follow the rest of the section.