User talk:Firebirdrebirth/Pi backbonding/AFakeDrummer Peer Review

Response to Peer Review
Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank the reviewer for their comments and feedback on my work. I have made some additional edits to address the comments from reviewers and have responded to all the comments below:

Reviewer Comment 1 (Lead):


 * Has the Lead been    updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has been slightly updated to provide more information about transition metal.


 * Does the Lead include    an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the     article's topic?

''The lead contains an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. It got updated and went a little more in depth of describing pi back bonding.''


 * Does the Lead include a    brief description of the article's major sections?

''The lead does not truly include a brief description of the major sections. Maybe making a sort of a thesis sentence could be good to get the readers to anticipate what to learn.''

Response 1:

The reviewer suggested adding a sentences that helps describe the articles sections, so I added “The ligands involved in π backbonding can be broken into three groups: carbonyls and nitrogen analogs, alkenes and alkynes, and phosphines.” as a thesis-like statement to show what the article will discuss.

Reviewer Comment 2 (Content):


 * Is the content added    relevant to the topic?

The content added is relevant due to talking about organic compounds and how they do pi back bonding.


 * Is the content added    up-to-date?

''All of the content with references are up-to-date! (All of them are around 2010s).''


 * Does the article deal    with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to     historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The addition adds to one of the sections of the article that did not have much information to begin with.

Response 2:

Thanks for the confirming sources are current. As a note, I did not add written sections in my sandbox draft. The changes I made were references in the “Meal-alkene and metal-alkyne complexes”, improving readability of lead section, and creating new M-CO sigma and pi backbonding images.

Reviewer Comment 3 (Tone and balance):


 * Is the content added    neutral?

''The content added is neutral. It adds more information about what metal-alkene and metal-alkyne pi backbonding happens. Since it talks about different possibilities, it loses a bit of neutrality which is understandable as it says which compounds are better.''

Response 3:

See response 2. Acknowledge that “strong pi backbonding” is not completely neutral, but that terminology is commonly used in describing pi backbonding in different metal complexes.

Reviewer Comment 4:

Sources and References

''All the sources are current and they all seem to derive nicely from the sources. Only one source, [6], is hidden behind a paywall so it might be better to see if there is a way to go around it or find another source.''

Response 4:

The reviewer recognizes that source 6 has a paywall. As the claim using source 6 also is supported by another reference that is accessible, I will leave source 6 as a reference. It is no longer necessary to support the claim, but it can be used to find further information on the topic if someone wishes.

Reviewer Commet 4 (Organization):

·       Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

''The content written feels a little off. It does not come off as clear, and I had to read the paragraph a couple of times to understand. Perhaps adding a picture if possible and/or changing the sentence;''

This electron transfer (i) strengthens the metal–ligand bond and (ii) weakens the C–C bonds within the ligand.

''I don't think it is necessary to add (i)/(ii). Perhaps a better way of describing it could be just removing it or altering the sentence without including it.''

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out that some writing was unclear in that section. I added a picture to Metal-Alkene and Metal-Alkyne complexes section, so that it is easier for people to visualize the bonding. Agreed with other suggestion and removed (i) and (ii) from all paragraphs.

Reviewer Comment 6 (Images):


 * Does the article    include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The image is well defined, and it gives a better understanding on the concept of pi back bonding.


 * Are images    well-captioned?

The images added are well-captioned.

Response 6:

Thank you for the positive feedback.

Overall impressions:


 * What are the strengths    of the content added?

''Adding images that correspond with the article was a good touch. Removing and clarifying the Lead is a good idea as it is more clear and streamlined to the average viewer.''


 * How can the content    added be improved?

''Changing the flow of the paragraph of Metal-alkene and metal-alkyne should be considered to better understand the content. Trying to find a reference to replace [6] is recommended. Removing (i)/(ii) across the article should improve the flow.''

Response 7:

Thanks for the positive feedback about the images and lead section. See comments (4) and (5) for suggestions on improvements.

I hope that my responses were thorough and address the reviewers’ concerns. Once again, thank you for your help in improving my edits to Pi Backbonding. Firebirdrebirth (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)