Talk:Plumbylene

Untitled

5.05 Peer review:

Great article! A comprehensive account on plumbylene research.

Here are some notes for improvement:

In the synthesis section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is of a different font size.

In the structure and bonding section, I have a more fundamental question: why would these dimerize if the singlet is so much more preferred to the triplet? I think the source cited here (Fischer) is arguing that diplumbylenes are only weakly associated, more of a Lewis adduct-type interaction than a strict “dimer.” The way I read it, plumbylenes tend to exist as monomers and only dimerize under certain conditions; the way it is presented in your account suggests the opposite, that they tend to dimerize and only exist as monomers in certain conditions. It might be good to specify which substituents with which electronic properties lead to which types of reactivity; the Weidenbruch source explains this to some extent.

Dimerization subsection: broken links digermylene, distannylene (could add a link to a non-Wikipedia page) Same section: I’m curious why the diplumbene bond length is longer than the diplumbane bond length. Wouldn’t that suggest a smaller bond order? Interesting that they use the term “N-heterocyclic plumbylene” to describe a ferrocene-based structure. I would recommend highlighting both new bonds formed (as of now, the scheme has only one out of two outlined in red).

Overall great reactivity section: concise, thorough, clear. Only comment in this section regards the Lewis adduct formation: Comparison to tin is unclear/assumes the reader has a deeper context in mind. I would add another sentence or two laying it out more clearly (could include a ChemDraw image, but not necessary).

Again, great article. Johbrbr (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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. Peer reviewers: Rogerjin1, Treverb, Johbrbr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Roger Jin Review

Comments:

Under the section: Structure and Bonding, subsection: Dimerization, I was confused by the following passage (emphasis mine):

These diplumbenes possess a trans-bent structure similar to that in lighter, non-carbon congeners (disilenes, digermylenes, distannylenes).[9] The observed Pb-Pb bond lengths in diplumbenes (2.903 – 3.527 Å) have been found to typically be longer than those in tetravalent diplumbanes R3PbPbR3 (2.84 – 2.97 Å).[13] This, together with the low computed dimerization energy of 24 kJ mol-1 for Pb2H4,[16] indicates weak multiple bonding. This is due to the donation of lone pairs in the very low-lying 6s orbital.[13]

Given that the bond length is longer than that of a single bond, why should the plumbene bond be considered a multiple bond at all? Including either a computational analysis or an extra sentence on the two donor-acceptor interactions would make this point clearer for me.

The figure under the subsection Stabilizing intramolecular interactions with substituents bearing lone pairs with the electrons on the amine donating into the Pb has an extra carbon bonded to the Pb.

Under the subsection: agostic interactions, it would be nice to see the overlap between the sigma B-H orbital and the p orbital on the Pb. Moreover, the colors of the lead and the carbons in that figure are very similar and hard to distinguish between one another.

The article was really nice! I learned a lot from reading it!

-Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerjin1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Structure under agostic interactions

Hey folks, I think, there is a small misstake in the structure under agostic interactions. The hydrogen atoms at the phosphorous should be at the boron, resulting in a R3P→BH3-Group. Have fun, --Meinichselbst (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)