User:Paperburner/User:Joppenhe1/sandbox/Paperburner Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Oppenheim (Joppenhe1)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Joppenhe1/sandbox

Lead
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, could be included for added clarity.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, the amount of detail seems appropriate for an introduction. Maybe just briefly describe the major sections.

Lead evaluation
Overall concise and clear.

Content
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? Not that I can spot

"Trivalent tetrels can also synthesized in a cyclic structure (e.g. Ar3Ge3•). This class of molecules tends to be slightly more stable than the cyclic analogues as the is a stabilization through the delocalization of the unpaired electrons within the π-system" Is there a typo?

Z• + R3EH → ZH + R3E• Maybe define Z and E? E was mentioned right at the begining but might be good to remind readers

R3ECl + Na → R3E• + NaCl '''This shows a reductive pathway. An oxidative one was shown earlier in the passage. So maybe remove the term oxidative here as it has been noted earlier?'''

Maybe explicitly refer to the correlation plot, as it is not mentioned in the text body?

the Pseudo Jahn-Teller effect, as the E-L anti-bonding orbitals '''Maybe define L? It probably means ligands but maybe a non chemistry reader would not know. Although I don't see how people who stumble across this page would be non-chemists'''

Content evaluation
Overall good and clearly written

Tone and Balance
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? I do not think so
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Good balance of tone and viewpoints

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? I guess, most recent source cited dates to 2009
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, links are not broken

Sources and references evaluation
Generally good. Although sometimes one source has multiple points that are written, so maybe worth to cite the same source multiple times between sentences?

Such developments have only been made in recent years because these compounds tend to be highly reactive (with respect to reactions such as dimerization and radical chain reactions). There have been two main approaches for stabilization. Firstly electronic stabilization, the tetrel is connected to an electron-rich atom such as oxygen, nitrogen, or fluorine. Secondly steric stabilization, the tetrel is surrounded by bulky ligands (such as -Y(SiMe3)2 (Y = N, CH), -Si(SiMe3)2Et (-Ebt), or -Si(SiMe3)3 (-Hyp)). It has become convention to describe a radical that can persist long enough for spectroscopic or chemical analysis as persistent and a radical that can persist indefinitely as stable.

So the above paragraph has one citation for multiple points and maybe cite the source after the first sentence as its a separate point?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Mostly, maybe the diagram in the EPR section can use more explanation for interpretation.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Maybe only one so far
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
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? Mostly
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Maybe additional figures can be used in the Stability section to illustrate the electronics and sterics effects, but generally well done.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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, I think
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Probably not exhaustive, but whats written accurately represents cited literature
 * 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? Not sure, linking to other articles does not mean more articles link to this article

New Article Evaluation
Probably fine

Overall impressions
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? Explained mostly using non technical terms
 * How can the content added be improved? Diagrams could be explained more

Overall evaluation
Should be good for publication online.