User talk:Chem507f10grp5/sandbox

Isolobal Principle Peer Review by Shawn Eady

I would say the page is suitable for general users, though understanding much about the comparisons intimately involved with this principle would be very difficult for them (i.e. MO theory, molecular symmetry). However, I think a sufficient explanation is given to give general users the gist of isolobal analogies and there is certainly enough information given/referred to in the page for those looking to understand the topic in more detail. See above; there appears to be adequate information to answer most questions regarding general concepts for isolobal analogies, as well as box text and journal sources if any additional information is desired.
 * Is the webpage suitable for first‐time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?
 * Is there sufficient detail provided to allow one to obtain an in‐depth understanding of the topic if required?

There is a logical flow (as well as a nice contents table), however further incorporation of headings (including title and perhaps separation of applications into the three sections mentioned). Regardless, the flow from general description to aspects of general isolobal analogies (with inclusion of MO theory dependence) on to additional isolobal analogies situations and finally applications seems to work well.
 * Is there a logical flow to the page?

Yes, the examples (and corresponding diagrams) are very important in clarifying this topic in my opinion; I feel as though these comparisons are most easily grasped if they can be visualized. Therefore, I think it was essential for each of the types of isolobal analogies to have a thorough description and an image visualizing it. The key points for each isolobal analogy situation was explained in addition to the MO theory dependence. I would say most the explanations were sufficient, though that concerning the MO theory dependence was briefer than I expected. However, due to the large amount of background info on the MO theory Wikipedia page and the presence on this page of the most important aspects (i.e. those involving the frontier orbitals), perhaps putting in more information would be more confusing than helpful.
 * Are there sufficient examples given to clarify key points?

In general I would say yes, I do not believe any of the sections have excessive amounts of information, though there are a few sections to which I personally think some additional information could be added (i.e. the Ligands section).
 * Do the contents of each section justify its length?

others? It is clear that the general properties/construction of isolobal fragments has been more strongly emphasized compared to the sections pertaining to the extensions of the analogy, but this was obviously purposeful and not necessarily a bad thing due to the relative importance of their understanding to better grasp the general concept. Again, some more content could stand to be added to the extensions of the analogy section.
 * Has a particular section been over‐emphasized or under‐emphasized compared to

Yes
 * Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline?

reference? Yes, the extent to which less-commonly known terms were linked was sufficient. I could not really find any good additional suggestions aside from 'isoelectronic'.
 * Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further

Chemdraw structures chemically accurate? Have the images been aligned appropriately with the text? Do the images enhance or clarify the topic? The images present all appear to be of good quality and appropriate size. They are appropriately aligned with the text and I believe are very important in helping the reader understand certain aspects of isolobal analogies (i.e. MO theory dependence). One area in which I felt additional images would be greatly appreciated is in the applications section in (what could be made) the predicting mechanisms subsection giving examples of different circumstances where isolobal analogies were used in research. Though the descriptions of the experiments were present, I feel visual representations should be included (i.e. visualize an example of imido half-sandwich (spelling) complexes).
 * Do the images meet the quality guidelines described in the handbook? Are the

Yes
 * Are the references complete and inclusive of textbooks and journal papers?

and equations or syntax errors. Overall, the web page is well designed and is mostly free of obvious typos and errors. Again, headings could use a little work including the potential addition of sub-headings in some areas. Images are clear and helpful in good positions. Inclusion of the contents box is a plus.
 * Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard‐to‐read images

references)? The website exceeds assigned criteria.
 * Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of 3 sections, 3 figures, 8

Site Summary
 * The site begins with a general description of the topic (though the title does not currently seem to be present) that is thorough and in my opinion sufficient for non-science, general users to grasp the concept. Following this is a contents box, which is efficient in describing the layout of the page (remember to update this if/when subsections are added). Next comes the basic (but more specific information involved with when isolobal analogies are used/constructed, followed by information to explain their dependence on MO theory and details regarding this. These sections are thorough to the extent the reader would need them to be in order to understand how MO theory is involved with isolobal analogies, though brief in terms of content of theory. Images are present to visualize the primary components of these sections (comparison of tetrahedral/octahedral frontier orbitals with ligand removal, general isolobal analogies).
 * The next few sections describe extensions of isolobal analogies including such factors as isoelectronic fragments ligand identity (which could be extended to involve more comparisons than just the electron donation count. I might be wrong, but there are likely analogies for similar ligand types regarding such factors as size, sterics and electronegativities). In general these sections are well described and the images included visualize the circumstances for the analogies well. The applications section that follows involves the discussion applications including predicting reactivities, predicting reaction mechanisms, and becoming familiarized with properties of less-known complexes by comparison with better-known ones. Two issues I found with this section included the lack of images for the predicting reaction mechanism examples from literature and when it is stated that Fe(CO)3 is said to be isolobal with CH+. Images to help the reader better understand the complexes involved with the experiments' isolobal analogies and an explanation of how Fe(CO)3 and CH+ are isolobal (i.e. symmetrically? isoelectronically? explain their chemical similarity) would improve this section.