Talk:Fluorinated ethylene propylene

Re: citations

I added these references to the spots were needed, I also checked that the information in the reference corresponded to the text, which it did. I would suggest to rephrase this section since it is just a list of one sentence statements.EV1TE (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the 'citation needed' points are taken from the "Fluoropolymer Comparison - Typical Properties DuPont" reference cited in the first sentence of the section. I don't know how best to present this, as I only ever make small changes and copy-pasting the ref on top of every cite needed (all I would know to do) doesn't seem like like a very nice solution. So I'll just leave this here in case anyone's looking to clean up the tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.204.114 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

re: notability

Although this is in itself a fairly obscure polymer, it is much more familiar under it's trade name Teflon. Possibly this article could be merged with Teflon, though to be honest I'd leave it as it is. The information seems factually correct and is bound to be of interest to the odd passing chemist/polymer engineer. It's not a vainity piece or a veiled trade advertisement so i don't see a problem with it. It might make more sense to mark it as needing rewriting/expanding.

I'd leave it

There's not much more to say about FEP than is written here. I've added links to the suppliers. It is a unique polymer, rather different to Teflon PTFE and deserves its own article, even if tiny. Maybe someone cold add a few applications, and a chemical formula.--Oldboltonian 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is important

FEP has its niche market. Although not as popular as PFA, I also consider that it deserves its own article. The entry could be expanded with additional information on physical properties. 25 sept. 2007 Julian Herrera —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)