User talk:Mofchem/sandbox

Review of Conjugated Microporous Polymers

The introduction has some areas that are repetitive and could use some rewording to allow for better flow of the paragraph. It is however generally accessible for non-experts that have a decent knowledge of chemistry. The design section is very short and should be expanded to some degree to lead into the synthesis section. For the synthesis section, it might be better to pick only a couple of the representative coupling reactions to showcase. Like picking a few of them that are either very commonly used in the field or that are used in the synthesis of an ubiquitous CMP (as MOF-5 is to the field of MOFs). It is good that the sections are linked to their appropriate Wikipedia pages for further information.

Figures are blurry and should be fixed by uploading a higher resolution image to the Wikimedia Commons. I would recommend using a .tif file as they are very high resolution and are easily exported from ChemDraw. But the content of the figures is good and visualizes some of what is talked about. It would be nice to see an image of a CMP structure if possible to have a better visualization of what the polymer looks like.

References are mostly journals, ie. only one source other than a journal. While it is a new field, it would be better to refer to any other source outside of journals when possible. Also, when citing text in the article, it is not necessary to cite a reference after every sentence that uses the reference. If a reference is cited in the section at least once, then it is unnecessary to cite it again in that section.

Overall I thought it was good and covers all of the bases about the polymer. Though the article does seem to have a lot about the synthesis in it, this is mostly because all of the images are in that section. It would be nice to see some images in the other sections, but I understand that this may not be possible.

Tiraxxis (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of conjugated microporous polymers

The introductory section could use some work to make it more accessible to non-experts. Starting out the first sentence with reference to zeolites, MOFs, and COFs might not be the best idea. I think it is useful to relate CMPs to these materials but maybe not in the first sentence. The paragraph would benefit from a more general definition of what a CMP is at the beginning. Aside from the first few sentences, the introductory paragraph is well written; it is general and bullet points important properties, pi conjugation, and potential applications. I think maybe drawing better attention to some of these here might be beneficial for a brief introduction and to structure the rest of the web page.

The synthesis section really dominates this page. It is a very comprehensive and useful section. It draws attention to the diverse ways of making these polymers and the benefits as well as limitations of each. In some cases I feel like there should be some expansion. Why do certain solvents (mentioned in Sonogashira coupling) facilitate the synthesis of CMPs better than others? From the figures, it is shown that Yamamoto coupling and Suzuki coupling give the same products. What are the benefits of one over the other? How can the overall structure of CMPs benefit or hurt from one synthetic path over the other?

Both the design and properties section are really lacking in content. I think that these sections would really benefit from a discussion of how the changing the structure, functional groups, size, pore diameter, rigidity, etc. can have an impact on the properties of the CMPs. For design, what types of monomers are used to make CMPs? What geometries are appealing for CMPs and why? Giving specific examples of CMPs and even a picture would be very useful for visualizing these materials. Some interesting properties of CMPs are listed but it may be useful to relate how changing different aspects of CMPs (structure, pore diameter, functional groups) might affect these properties and further how these properties are important for applications.

The applications section is also very short. It might be useful to discuss the current state of CMPs (if any) in applications. Also, the advantages as well as limitations of using CMPs in various applications should be discussed in more sufficient detail. Many important concepts are linked to their respective Wikipedia pages. This is especially well done with linking the different synthetic methods to make CMPs. A few pages/phrases that maybe should be linked to make it more accessible for the general public are: Schiff base, porous material, homocoupling, organoboron, functional group, alkyne, halogenide, conjugation, and microporosity. The content of this Wikipedia does not seem to be duplicative of other Wikipedia pages.

The figures in the Wikipedia page are well made. They are simple and not too cluttered. The figures do add to the text of the synthesis section as they demonstrate the linkages formed using any give set of conditions. The figures are chemically aligned as well. I think that a figure of a larger section of a CMP, maybe even a schematic drawing, would be useful to show the overall structure. This would be helpful for discussing things such as pore diameter and surface area as it will give the reader a picture to associate with these concepts.

There are more than 10 references listed, and these consist of both books and journal articles. It might be nice to be a little more consistent in the way in which the various references are cited; maybe include titles in all the references. Overall, I feel that while this Wikipedia page is an improvement over the current page, it could still use improvement. The synthesis section is the most comprehensive and really covers a lot of ground which highlighting the importance with figures. Many important phrases are linked to their respective pages but many terms could also use to be linked. The introduction, design, properties, and application sections could really use some expansion. Figures in these sections would be beneficial in getting important points across more clearly. I think that by providing a few more basic definitions and expanding on some points that have already been made, this Wikipedia page will turn out really well.

Sydonie Schimler