Talk:Boron porphyrins

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Johbrbr. Peer reviewers: Nblewis, Griffen.desroches.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5.05 Peer Review[edit]

Formatting
- Intro paragraph: “While boron has been shown to prefer binding to porphyrin in a 2:1 stoichiometry,…” - citation needed here
- Should include a citation for the 1:1 corrole binding as well
- Line four of intro should read “to which both boron and porphyrin are subjected to…”
- What is a dyad? Keep in mind that this article is intended for the general public, not necessarily for an MIT audience in particular
- Synthesis graphics should remain in the synthesis section. Can insert a frameless svg into the section itself to avoid awkward placement
- In general, your references should appear at the first time the material is mentioned in the article. For example, the reference for the 1:1 B:corrole binding ratio should come in the intro section, rather than later in the article.
- Furthermore, if a source is used in multiple sections, it’s entirely acceptable (even recommended) to link the reference to said source in each of the sections.
- The same references appear multiple times:
o References 1 and 2
o References 3 and 7
o References 4 and 9
o References 11, 12, 22, 23
o References 15 and 17
- The figures needn’t be placed off to the side in frames. Again, converting the image to “frameless” format can alleviate this.
- Reduction section: Second sentence should read “… was able to demonstrate that reductive coupling… only occurs with…”

Scientific content:
- For BX2 reductive coupling, Brothers et al. mention that it was found to be spontaneous for X = I as well as X = Br. The steric strain seems to increase proportionally as the halide gets heavier.
- Given the strange geometries that can come into play (such as the in/out of plane geometry with a bridging oxygen), what kind of B-N bond lengths can one expect in such a system? And do they depend on the identity of any other groups attached to boron?
- Some Belcher/Brothers papers (ref 11 and 4, respectively) contain B-O an B-X bond lengths – perhaps comment on those if you think it’s relevant.
- Several papers use the change in N---N distance within porphyrin as a proxy for ring strain – may want to make mention of this.

Overall, a great degree of care and attention to detail went into this article. Some formatting errors/hiccups need to be smoothed out, and more information from some of the source material could be implemented further flesh out the reactivity/ring strain behavior.

Griffen.desroches (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what about commenting on the quality of an article with respect to Wikipedia vs homework grading?

Are the references appropriate vs WP:SECONDARY? (hint: seems a little specialized)
avoid any original research vs WP:OR, a very strict guideline in Wikipedia?

Again, its probably nice homework, but Wikipedia is not about homework but a consensus-guided, tone-sensitive (encyclopedic) product.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible GA article[edit]

@Walkerma: - Greetings, while doing article assessments (with Rater assessment tool) I see that the ORES rating is for GA. Instead, I changed article to C quality. Since chemistry is totally outside my knowledge-base I thought you might be interested in reviewing this article. Overall the article seems to be complete, could use a "See also" section, and is tagged as being "Orphan". Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this at the time, I just noticed it among old notifications. I think C looks OK for now, and B may be appropriate. I'll also see if I can integrate it more into the general encyclopedia so it's not orphaned. Thx Walkerma (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]