User talk:Chem507f10grp4/amysandbox

• Note: The “sandbox” version that I was editing last night is no longer available. I continued my editing on “amysandbox” instead.

This Wikipedia page is a great improvement from the existing version. The basic theory is expanded on immensely, and the examples and explanations provide a great introduction to MO theory. One point of improvement is the introduction. I believe it is somewhat complicated for a first-time user. It is supposed to be the most basic part of the page, but to me, it is perhaps the most confusing. Try to simplify it, and don’t feel like you have to include everything that you have included. I think the original version is easier to understand than your edited version. In contrast, the material in the body of the page builds nicely upon itself, allowing for a basic understanding to grow into a more complicated one with relative ease. Your use of examples and images is done very nicely. Overall, they help clarify all points of emphasis and provide necessary information to the reader. The image in the in “Interactions contributing to bond formation” section could be better organized. It seems almost like a random assortment of images put together in one bigger picture. Try to break it up and reorganize it. Maybe putting boxes around each group of related orbitals. One common item I would like to see more of in the entire page is explanations of deceptively simple ideas. Although it might seem basic for a chemistry Ph.D. student, it may not be for a first-time user or lesser accomplished chemistry. This can be seen in the introduction and a couple other locations. In the history section, “By 1933, the molecular orbital theory had become accepted as a valid and useful theory.” Explain why it became accepted. In the “MOT Background” section, explain why electron density between atoms is favored. Why do antibonding orbitals, with decreased electron density between atoms, destabilize molecules? Like these examples, try and explain these statements somewhat better as opposed to just placing them in the text. Overall, I would say this is a great start to the webpage. I believe the “sandbox” version that is no longer available was more complete than the “amysandbox” page, but like I noted, the former version is not available anymore. With that said, some of these suggestions may have been fixed. The one major source of improvement I would recommend would be to include or clarify explanations. I think the content is good, but explanations can make the page great.

My review(Nick Roe)

Nicholas Roe Inorganic Chemistry

Section 1 Is the webpage suitable for first‐time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?

I think you open the topic very well, or at least as well as you can for a complex theory. However, the word “we” referring to the authors should be removed.

 Is there sufficient detail provided to allow one to obtain an in‐depth understanding of the topic if required?

In the sections that are complete a good level of detail is discussed. The Homonuclear Diatomic Molecular Orbitals, Heteronuclear Diatomic Molecular Orbitals and

Multi-Atom Molecular Orbitals obviously need to be completed though. 

 Is there a logical flow to the page?

There is good flow to the page, though in some places the wording should be a little more formal. Try and keep the conversational flow but remove things like “first we” or “next you.”

 Are there sufficient examples given to clarify key points?

yes

 Do the contents of each section justify its length?

The three sections mentioned above need completed content, but otherwise yes.

 Has a particular section been over‐emphasized or under‐emphasized compared to others?

No not really.

 Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline?

There seems to be plenty of content and a proper amount of references.

 Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

Add electronegativity, but otherwise yes.

 Do the images meet the quality guidelines described in the handbook? Are the Chemdraw stuctures chemically accurate? Have the images been aligned appropriately with the text? Do the images enhance or clarify the topic?

The figures are all too small and hard to read, but otherwise they are fine.

 Are the references complete and inclusive of textbooks and journal papers?

Yes

 Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard‐to‐read images and equations or syntax errors.

There are some tense issues in the H2 molecular orbitals section and the images are too small, but otherwise it seems to be fine.

 Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of 3 sections, 3 figures, 8 references)?

Yes

Section 2 Provide a short summary of the entire site, highlighting both what the group did well as well as what needs to be improved. In addition to emailing your critique to both Nate and the group in which you are critiquing, please post the peer review in the discussion section of the group’s sandbox. (At the end of the semester, this will be moved to the live page so that readers can comment and see the progression of the page through out the semester.)

This wiki page introduces molecular orbital theory, then covers a few of the details of the theory in short paragraphs. The most time is spent on the simplest example of H2 molecular orbitals, in order to show how atomic orbitals interact to form molecular orbitals. Since molecular hydrogen is so simple, this makes the concept easy to grasp. Further examples are listed but not completed yet. The applications of this theory are in fundamental and computational chemistry. It is used to understand how molecules are formed and react.

The experimental evidence section should be lengthened. The H2 section is useful in understanding the topic, but should be more formally worded to match the wikipedia style. The three uncompleted sections should be completed or deleted. The diagrams should use larger words or just be larger in general. The “Other stuff” section should also be either completed or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chem507f10grp1 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)