User:Yagrum/Tris(cyclooctatetraene)triiron/CantElopeIsland Peer Review

General info
Yagrum
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Yagrum/Tris(cyclooctatetraene)triiron
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
** Lead:**

This is concise and nicely preludes the major sections of the article. It also provides a good idea of why this molecule is notable and where it comes from. You should add citations for the sentences about Dewar and Jones, and the discoverers.

** Content:**

The content is relevant to the topic. You should clarify abbreviations in some places or link to a page for that. For example when you say n-heterocyclic carbene add (NHC) to the end to indicate you plan to use that abbreviaton. When you use TON there might not be an article for that so it’s probably best to spell it out. Is there a proposed mechanism for the preparation of the compound? It is a little hard to visualize the role that the NHC plays in catalysis here.

In the electronic structure section, this might be my own misunderstanding, but if the cluster is thought to have a 48-electron closed shell configuration then would you say that each FeCOT moiety has 16 electrons? Could you clarify how the COT ligand acts as both eta3 and eta5? It is clear from the picture but what metal orbitals are involved in the interaction between each bonding mode? Also, it would be nice to see how exactly the COT ligands can flux so that there is only one signal in the proton NMR, because this is a pretty shocking result. How can the protons on the edge closest to the metal be equivalent to the protons in the middle of COT between the two metals? This is a really interesting. I read further and saw that it’s because the COT rotates, maybe group these into a paragraph.

** Tone and Balance:**

The content is neutral and there are not any claims that appear biased towards a particular posisiton. Similiarly I think all viewpoints or appropriately represented and there is no attempt at persuasion.

** Sources and References:**

There should be references in the lead section and throughout the article. I am guilty of this, where I cite the article once and don’t add citations when I discuss it further, but I think this helps make it clear where all the data and observations are coming from.

** Organization:**

Try to group the stand alone sentences in the electronic structure section into paragraphs or subsections. Make sure to appropriately subscript the numbers in your molecules.

** Images and Media:**

The IBOS are beautiful and you can see the different eta3 eta5 bonding modes pretty well. Maybe you could label the IBOs with which HOMO/LUMO they correspond to, if there’s a clean analogy between the IBOs and MOs. The IBO showing the dz2 orbitals of iron could be discussed in the electronic structure.

** Overall impressions:**

The article meets Wikipedia's notability requirement. I'm not familiar with the topic to say if the sources are exhaustive. I think the article reads very well and presents the information in an understandable way. The content could be improved with some more detail in some areas and more content in the reactivity and applications section. Overall, I think once you article is complete it will be stellar.