User:NatMath13/Transition metal carbene complex/CoolChemist Peer Review

{| class="wikitable" Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:
 * Peer review
 * Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * }

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@NatMath13 (I'm assuming Nathan)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NatMath13/Transition metal carbene complex


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Transition Metal Carbene Complex

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
Hi @NatMath13! Here's my peer review for you,

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 4 additional references and other page links have been added to previously unorganized and frankly confusing information (there is a "dubious-discussion" source which isn't very helpful, nice job fixing that). Overall, your new lead is nice, and it reflects the new information reviewed below well.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, its good. No changes have been made to the "hook" sentence, only context is given in the next sentence. The writing style is really good here, no major bias anywhere. Maintain that if your adding more stuff.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not. It mentions Schrock and Fischer carbenes, which are sections, but doesn't talk about history. This is really a minor fix, just add something about "the history of carbenes started in xxx" to include the history section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Its concise, as long as it needs to be.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * In addition to the new bonding schematic images you've added, you also put down a really important example with the "Fisher carbenes include (CO)5W=COMePh and (OC)5Cr=C(NR2)Ph." part. I really like this and its incredibly useful for people learning the subject. Moreover, the entire history section has gotten a useful remodel, with information directly referencing the field's advancements in all types of carbenes with their respective contributors.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yup! Of the 6 new sources you've added, the oldest article concerns Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis (Its from 1982). Given that this technique is still used (and that it looks like you've used the source not for its scientific content but rather it claim of the importance of catalysis in industry), it should be fine to keep. Many of your references are missing dates and journal citations, please add them.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There isn't any data that's flat out wrong from what I see, but I don't see the reasoning for getting rid of the iMes image in N-Heterocyclic Carbenes; it was one of the few images on this page. Other than that, most changes only add or ameliorate existing content here so that's nice.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The history section didn't even discuss N-heterocyclic carbenes or Schrock carbenes at all, nor the respective scientists who discovered them prior to NatMath13's edits. I don't think there's any equity gaps, as Schrock and Fischer carbenes derive their names from who discovered them.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, everything added here lacks a specific tone. There's more emphasis on adding examples and explanatory information, which makes sense, but it doesn't hinder any of the content here. There is no bias, implicit or otherwise that I can see here.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the bulk of the content is necessarily the work of two previous scientists. Furthermore, the addition of images, examples and applications is done really well which takes emphasis away from those two scientists if anything.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, every new piece of information is accompanied by a textbook or journal paper source. I really want to hammer in that you should cite these sources with dates and journal names.


 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, I discussed the issue of age previously on the question of content, but no information here is "out of date".
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?
 * Yup! It is not the same research set of a particular author or university, but rather man different universities and authors. Lots of examples here of very different inorganic, organic and general chemistry author work.
 * 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 really, the only issue I see is not citing enough textbooks but if that information is already present in another source, then there's no point.

Images and Media

Organization
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Absolutely. I believe the main strength of the revised article here is the images hands down. There's a ton of newly added images that do nothing but explain or otherwise enhance the rest of the added text content. Bravo.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes! Every single newly added image is captioned with a more than adequate description. Even if that wasn't the case, a pre-amble about the concept the image corresponds to is given, so its covered there also.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, most if not all of these images are self-work, or fall under public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, each one is in its rightful section and doesn't cloud any information. Stylistically, they are centered or off to the side when appropriate.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes its easy to read. Many of the old page's mistakes concerned casually mentioning a hard topic, then just linking to the corresponding page inexplicably (which is terrible). In the new edits, a good description is given to any out of context idea (e.g. Carbene Insertion is explained rather than being added and not addressed)
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a couple mistakes (please re-read your work):
 * The synthesis and characterization of ((CH3)3CCH2)Ta=CHC(CH3)3, by Richard R. Schrock in 1974 marked the first metal alkylidene complex.
 * Do not need a comma here
 * The first metal carbene complex to have been reported was Chugaev's red salt, first synthesized as early as 1925, altough it was never recognised as such.
 * Although and recognized are mis-spelt


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yeah, but that isn't new. What is new is the addition of subtopics in the carbene reagents section (Methyl Abstraction, Carbonyl Olefination, etc.) which really helps the article. This new writing style of priming the reader before explaining the topic is super useful, and was missing from the original

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Absolutely. The article before was a glorified page of redirects to the bulk of transition metal complex topics like carbenes and even the history. It felt pointless to have an article about anything the old article had (I'm seriously racking my brain trying to think of a reason to visit the old article instead of its redirects and I can't). Now, with these new changes, this article serves as an excellent stepping stone to more advanced topics! Its legible and gives a base idea to anything you might click on: "N-Heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs) are particularly common carbene ligands. They are popular because they are more readily prepared than Schrock and Fischer carbenes" is a REALLY good primer for that redirect! The new changes vastly improve the overall quality of the article by making it not only more complete, but much more accessible.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Easily the biggest strength is how much more accessible its become. The inclusion of detailed descriptions, images, new redirects and sources do wonders for making this an accessible article to those without formal education in this field (or even with! I can't tell you how much of a headache the original article would be to comb through if I didn't take 318). What you've done here in making the article more easily read and legible to those with a weaker scientific background is incredible, nice job.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * In my opinion, the base changes are finished now. There's not a need to add more new content, but rather only double check and make sure everything new added is solid and true(Are the changes mistake free grammar-wise? Do you need more sources? Is anything unnecessary? etc.)

Peer Review Response
Dear CoolChemist,

Thank you very much for your peer review and feedback on the article Transition Metal Carbene Complexes. I have incorporated many of the changes and believe that the article is more complete and clearer as a result.


 * add something about "the history of carbenes started in xxx" to include the history section.: I have decided to omit this as the history is complex, and it is difficult to say that the history started at a given time without significant bias. Therefore, it would be necessary to repeat much of the history section, which feels redundant.
 * Many of your references are missing dates and journal citations, please add them.: I am unsure what the peer reviewer is refering to here. From my verification, all journal sources have the date and journal names in them. The references which do not are books or textbook, which following the wikipedia guidelines only have the year. There are some weirdly formatted references (ex. 8), where the information is in a different order, however I believe this is due to the wikipedia template, since all the information is present in the template.
 * I really want to hammer in that you should cite these sources with dates and journal names.: See point above
 * Grammar and Typos: I have corrected all grammatical errors pointed out, and corrected the whole page for typos, grammar and sentence structure.

I again wish to thank the reviewer for the feedback on the page. Hopefully, having incorporated some of the changes, the quality of this wikipedia article is improved and the information on carbenes is more accessible on wikipedia.

- Author