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

Peer review
Notes


 * In the introduction the "e.g." should have a reference or name of such molecule. Don't all molecule of three atoms have to be coplanar? The reference to Paul Schleyer seems to be out of place, maybe move his name to See Also. I suggest altering "by coordianting it" to "upon coordination to".
 * In synthesis, I suggest making a figure representing the synthesis by Braunchsweig or of the X-ray crystal structure.
 * In "Structure and Bonding", the title should be changed to "Structure and bonding". Has no one studied the B3 system using a coupled cluster method? It may be beneficial to create an MO diagram of the sigma and pi orbitals and symmetry labels as a figure.
 * In "B3+", I would suggest being careful not to delve to much into any single paper, and consider the field as a whole. Is the NBO figure of the same orbital from two different perspectives necessary in two perspectives? If perspective matters, I suggest creating a .gif of the molecule rotating. The word "nonnegligible" should be "non-negligible".
 * Please remove the [TO FOLLOW: ] lines from the text.
 * In "B3", I make the not that all molecules of three atoms have to be flat and triangular.
 * In "B3R32-", what is a formal bond order of 4/3?
 * In "Spectroscopy and Spectometry", the title should be "Spectroscopy and spectrometry". I would suggest removing the word "Interestingly" as the article should be objective. The third paragraph in this section seems to be unrelated to the article.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Tetreaphenylporphine
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tetraphenylporphine/sandbox/Triboracyclopropenyl

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The historical section of the lead can be put into its own section.

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?
 * No

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?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are possibly too many references to the primary literature and not to the secondary literature.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * See notes above
 * 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 (great figures)
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Probably
 * 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?
 * No, but it should

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?
 * There is a very detailed description in the structure and bonding section.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * See the notes above.

Overall evaluation
Great start to the article. It needs a few touch-ups and should make a good addition to Wikipedia.