User:Paperburner/User:Paperburner/sandbox/BASkeel Peer Review

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

A couple notes:


 * The figure illustrating metal-free H2 activation has labels missing on the products. Specifically, the boron center is absent, and one of the phenyl rings is labeled as being a C6H5 group instead of a C6F5 group.
 * A similar label is missing on compound 1,2-Et2-4 from the figure describing the addition of alkynes--one of the C6H5 groups should instead be a C6F5 group.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Paperburner
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Paperburner/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead describes a small subset of the overall article (namely, the lead includes a bit on the electronic structure and chemical composition of boroles).
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Mostly, the first and second sentences describe the concept as a whole.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is no mention of borole reactivity in the lead for this article, despite reaction chemistry being one of the largest single sections for the article. An area of improvement might be to include a sentence on commonly observed borole reactivity in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. The lead quickly summarizes a couple components of the main article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is quite concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article does a good job summarizing the most salient points of the article, but would be better if it included a sentence or two on reactivity.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All content added is relevant to the topic. Some of the content may be too specific, however. Specifically, much of the reactivity section contains detailed accounts of individual papers, which is probably not necessary.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the article cites both sources that are historically relevant and sources that are more modern.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some of the specific reaction chemistry of boroles likely does not need to be included, as it is more detailed than one might expect in an encyclopedic article.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is thorough, but likely does not need as much detail as it currently has, particularly in the reactions section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the claims presented represent those of the chemistry community as a whole.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the article is thorough and treats the field as a whole.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone and balance of the article is very good. It is well written.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the article cites multiple sources for all new facts.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources for this article are very thorough. It would be nice to see a review article cited as well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are very up-to-date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the ones I checked do.
 * Yes, the ones I checked do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well written, though, again, the reactivity section might be a little too detailed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I have spotted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The contents of this article are well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the images help to convey the points being made--particularly in cases where describing concepts in words can be difficult.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Mostly. Some images are referred to as figures, whereas others are not. It would be best if either all of them were referred to as figures, or if none of them were.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * In some portions of the article, there are probably too many images, and they make the page feel cluttered. I would advise removing a couple of them (particularly towards the end). In particular, some of the QTAIM figures might be best left as discussions within the text, with no associated figures.

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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The source list is quite comprehensive, and represents a good survey of current 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?
 * Yes, this article links to multiple other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The current borole article is very short, and this contribution greatly expands upon the scope of the existing article, making it much more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The previous article had no discussion of reactivity, and very little discussion of synthesis. The new additions resolve these issues.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The reactivity section and the number of images in the article could be pared down. Other than that, this is a good article.

Overall evaluation
See comments above.