User talk:AlecWild/sandbox

Metalation Article

INTRO: Very good intro, nicely wrapped around from the definition to the most common instances. One phrase at the very end caught my eye: “…also observe significant use in both laboratory and industrial applications” This is a really awkward way to put this. Observe? How does an inanimate object observe use?

HISTORY: I would take out the examples: “mercury, lead, antimony, and others” because they interrupt the flow of information and distract from the goal of the sentence.

For the sentence: “…though these reagents did not see widespread use as metallating agents or reagents in organic synthesis…” just do “…see widespread use in organic synthesis…” Unless I’m missing something, it seems like what they’re being used for is easily inferred.

I just wanted to differentiate the reactions from each-other here: while metallated reagents are used a lot in synthesis, they can also be produced by themselves for use as bases or for other applications.AlecWild (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REACTIVITY AND APPLICATIONS: I think you need more citations in the Reactivity of Metallated compunds. However, this section was very well written and well organized. I like your use of the various subsections.

I didn't feel the need to cite these claims because they're mostly common chemical knowledge. Also, the articles I link to making these claims also don't cite these claims. (Not the perfect response, I know, but I felt that it was valid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecWild (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, your writing was excellent, and you’ve obviously done your research. This was way more text than I think we had to write, and you’ve done a very good job of it. Benjamindkilleen (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astrochemistry article

Peer Review: Jacob Stein
"Spectroscopy began to be used" -> "Spectroscopy was first used" this is more concise
"An equivalent statement was independently postulated by Anders Jonas Ångström in his 1853 work Optiska Undersökningar, where it was theorized that luminous gases emit rays of light at the same frequencies as light which they may absorb." Is there a source for this?
Instead of using dashes for appositive phrases, I think you should be using commas.
Overall, this is a really interesting contribution to the article, and I think you do a great job of going through some key history of the field. My only real suggestion might be to include some more implications of the facts you list to ensure the significance of each event is clear. Jacob.stein (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Victoria Constant 'As an offshoot of the disciplines of astronomy and chemistry, the history of astrochemistry is founded upon the shared history of the two fields.' --> change this to: 'The history of astrochemistry comes from the shared history of astronomy and chemistry'
The article is well fleshed out and feels comprehensive. It ends a little abruptly; to remedy this maybe change the title of the second section to "history of interstellar chemistry" because the second section doesn't look very connected to the first with the current title. Aside from that and small grammar things noted by Jacob, you're good to go :) Vconstant (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]