Talk:Hydroamination

message: The introduction to the article is written in accessible language, and I believe is understandable to non-experts. However, the original introduction was only slightly expanded upon. While you don’t want to give much technical detail in the introduction, I might add a little more on exactly why this reaction is important and how advances in this synthetic process will be important for organic chemistry. Maybe give an example of a product that is produced industrially using hydroamination. The article is generally well-linked to the relevant more detailed articles on Wikipedia. I would suggest adding links to a few more sites such as “organic synthesis,” “amines,” “intramolecularly” (links to “intramolecular reactions”), “catalysts” and “heterocycles” (“heterocyclic compound”). I would also make sure to link the terms more related to physical chemistry such as “activation barrier” (“activation energy”), “entropy,” and “thermodynamically neutral” (maybe “reaction enthalpy”?). In general, my suggestion is just to make sure than a reader who wanted more information about a specific chemistry term could easily access it.
	
I believe the article needs some reformatting, not necessarily in terms of content but in terms of structure. There are a lot of details in the introduction sections which should really be in separate subheadings. What I suggest is to follow the introductory information (right now ending with, “…separate amine and unsaturated compound.”) with the Table of Contents. In this introductory section I would add a small figure – probably inline – that shows a very general overall reaction for hydroamination (maybe something similar to the top reaction in the first image on the current page). Then after the Table of Contents I might add a section that describes the reaction in general and perhaps includes something on its scope. In this section you might include the first two figures you added to the page (the order and content of the sections is up to you; this is just a suggestion). Those figures are clear and very informative, and I believe they would add nicely to the general explanation of the scope of the reaction. (If you wanted, you could also include a specific example of a hydroamination reaction demonstrating the “cool” chemistry it can accomplish – lots of examples in some of your reviews.) I would include all of the information on catalysis into the section on the Catalytic cycle (right now there is some information in the last paragraph of the introduction).  Finally, I might suggest moving the section on thermodynamic versus kinetic products a little higher up in the article – it is more general than the base and group (IV) catalysis sections above it.
The general information included in the sections is appropriate both in length and content. The examples presented are appropriate and add to the text. My only suggested addition is adding a figure showing one example of a reaction mechanism catalyzed by a late transition metal. 
The added figures themselves are of high quality and easy to read. I especially like the first one demonstrating the scope of intermolecular hydroamination reactions. However, I would suggest modifying the captions in most of the figures so that they are more able to stand alone from the text. For example, in the first figure I might say, “Examples demonstrating the scope of the hydroamination reaction.” I might clarify the catalytic cycle mechanism caption just by adding something like, “Proposed catalytic cycle for an intramolecular hydroamination reaction (T.J. Marks).” Just make sure to link the reference of this. In general, I suggest just making sure that the caption gives a clear description of exactly what is in the picture/scheme. For the section on thermodynamic and kinetic products I suggest adding a figure that shows the example reactions you are describing (the rhodium and palladium catalyzed reactions). Seeing the reactions would help the reader to more easily understand what you are describing. Finally, I believe either wrapping the text or making some of the figures thumbnails and putting them inline could improve the general presentation of the article. The reader can click on the picture to enlarge it. This would cut down on some of the breaks and white space in the article.
Yes, the references are complete – it seems that 11 were added (there were 9 references in the original article and 20 are included in the sandbox). Most are peer-reviewed journal articles or reviews, but there are also a number of textbooks/print resources. I believe there is a good range of types of references.
Overall, I believe the group did well in expanding the information available on hydroamination. They also did well in highlighting the unique and interesting chemistry that is possible with hydroamination. The figures they added help the reader to understand the scope of the reaction and one of the catalytic mechanisms by which it can occur. The major changes required include general reorganization of the article, some caption clarification, and some additional linking to existing Wikipedia articles. A few example figures would also enhance the article, but are not necessary for general clarity and understanding. In general, this group made a strong contribution the content currently in the “hydroamination” article.
RLM0518 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RLM0518 Peer Review

message: UMChemProfessor (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Comments