User talk:Astatocarbon

This page is left intentionally blank of peer reviewers to add sections. --Astatocarbon (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of Silylone

Overall, "silylone" is a very nicely made Wikipedia page that showcases some interesting research from literature, using clear descriptions and an unbiased tone. The ChemDraw schemes, molecular orbital figures and references are thoughtfully chosen. Below are some suggestions for further polishing this page:

General formatting

When acronyms (such as NMR, THF, CV) are used for the first time in the page, I recommend writing out the full name followed by a parenthesis with the abbreviation-for example, "nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)". After this, the acronym can be used directly without any ambiguity (even for readers who are less familiar with the field). In addition, try to make the ChemDraw figures roughly uniform in size. This would improve the consistency within the wikipage. For example, the second ChemDraw is noticeably smaller than the first ChemDraw, which can be seen by comparing the size of the text that appeared in both figures (such as "Si").

Lead section

The first sentence of the lead section is important for readers who are looking for a quick definition of the concept without delving into the rest of the page. In order for it to be as informative as possible for a broad audience, I think it is preferable to avoid jargons there, and build the definition in the first sentence upon straightforward concepts. Therefore, defining "silylone" while introducing the concept of "metallyone" in the first sentence may not be ideal, and you may want to save it for a later sentence. I found the defining characteristics provided by the second sentence to be more informative, and thus you may want to incorporate some of those information into the first sentence instead.

"Theoretical predictions" section

It would be helpful to expand a bit more on the discussion on why the trisilaallene complexes was reexamined to be silylone, instead of only explaining with "using the same analysis". Some Wikipedia readers may not read the entire section in order, thus it may be preferable to make most paragraphs relatively self-contained.

"cAAC stabilized silylones" section

Great discussions, with only a minor formatting issue: the 29Si-NMR is linked to the page "NMR"-therefore you may want to unlink the "29Si" portion.

"bis-NHC stabilized silylones" section

I enjoyed the detailed discussion on the reactivity of bis-NHC stabilized silyones that are also illustrated with clear ChemDraw schemes. The HOMO and HOMO-1 orbital figures are beautifully-made-however, I can't find sufficient corresponding discussion of these orbitals in the text to justify the incorporation of these orbital drawings. I would recommend adding a bit more discussion of these orbitals (such as analysis of their parentage/ what characteristics made them special/ how do they relate to reactivity) to complement the nice orbital diagram.

--Ruomengwan (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Ruomengwan[reply]

Peer Review

Overall:

You have too many walls of text. The writing is good, but some of your big paragraphs can definitely be split into smaller paragraphs for more readibility.
Have more references to wikipedia articles.
Good information; thorough in breadth; no bias or outdated information. Some of the parts could be organized more clearly, though.
Your references work and are relevant.

Introduction:

Your silylone picture has bad .jpeg compression.
Concise description.

Theoretical predictions:

Good that you credit for work and have dates.
“Compared to analogous models…” could start a new paragraph.
Link to the wikipedia page for “silylene” the first time you refer to it.
Why does this data lead “to the conclusion that complexes are best described as silylones as opposed to silylenes and should be experimentally realizable”? Consider explaining briefly, because it’s not immediately obvious to everyone.
Draw a picture of trisilaallene for clarity. In the caption, you can point out parts of the molecule that designate it as a silylone and not a silylene.

cAAC stabilized silylones:

Capitalize your title. Not the cAAC part, but the “stabilized” and “silylones” parts.
Add a short blurb about cAAC stabilized silylones before jumping into synthesis--what makes them distinct. I know there’s a cAAC stabilized silylone’s page, but this guides the reader and clarifies what exactly cAAC stabilized silylones are. Here, you can also discuss the types of cAACs that are found to stabilize silylones.
This section is kind of confusing. You’re referring to a specific complex in the Synthesis and Structure sections, but then you refer to a different complex in Reactivity while all while using “the complex”.
The weighting of the “Structure” subheading is equivalent to that of the Synthesis. You’re referring to Mondal’s structure in this discussion, but the weighting of the subheader makes it look like you’re talking about a general structure for cAAC stabilized silylones. Honestly, up until I got to the last section, I thought you were going to talk about one very specific molecule for the entire cAAC-stabilized silylones section.
When talking about the first cAAC SS synthesis, you should report a formula for the complex Mondal synthesized.

bis-NHC stabilized silylones:

Same capitalization issue as above.
Having some text before your first subheading would be effective here as well. Information on the types of NHCs that stabilize silylones, etc. In the start of your “Structure” subsection you compare NHC stabilized SS to cAAC stabilized SS. Some of this information would make an effective subheading-text, such as it having stronger donor-acceptor interactions.
Under Reactivity:
- Lewis acids: Your first figure is for the “Lewis Acids” part. The way it’s placed makes it look like it’s also relevant to the “Chalcogenides” part. Consider placing it under your “Lewis Acids” part.
- Chalcogenides:
  - Your “Other chalcogenide-ligated silicon complexes” graphic isn’t really relevant until the end of that subsection. Its current placement distracts from your topic at hand, at that point in the article--reaction with sulfur.
  - Similarly, move the reaction scheme for the reaction of bis-NHC SS with sulfur up after you introduce the reaction and before you talk about its structure. It’s helpful for the reader to have an image of the product before you analyze its structure.
  - Description of this reaction and its product also warrants a new paragraph, for clarity.
  - “previously synthesized SiX2 complexes which were polymeric”: is X referring to silicon and oxygen? Or halogens as well? Earlier, you specify that X = Se, Te, but clearly this phrase does not refer to those 2 elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyuy (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]