User:Paperburner/User:Tetraphenylporphine/sandbox/Triboracyclopropenyl/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? Alabugin (Tetraphenylporphine)
 * 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? Pretty consise

Lead evaluation
Well written 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? No, everthing mentioned in the lead was covered

Content evaluation
Generally good.

The part on 2 π aromaticity may need revision. Hückel rules states that 4n + 2 π electrons is aromatic and 4π is anti aromatic. B3R32- should have 2 π electrons in the π system which makes it aromatic? So not sure why the 6 σ bonding electrons are mentioned to bring the total cluster electron count to 8.

Not sure whether it is absolutely to use group theory terms when describing B3+ since readers may not be familar and I am not sure how much it addes value to the picture shown.

There was no refering to either the NBO figure or the AIM analysis of the nobel gas complex in the text body.

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? Don't 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
Generally good balance and tone

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? Yes, there are sources as current as 2019
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, there are working links.

Sources and references evaluation
Varies number of sources

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, content is easy to read and digest
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can spot
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Well organised

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?

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, it is
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Likely not exhaustive, but accurately represents topics presented in the lead
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Maybe

New Article Evaluation
Should be good as a new article

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? Interesting molecules and content
 * How can the content added be improved? Correct possible mistakes in content.

Overall evaluation
Should be ready for publishing