Talk:Mixed oxidant
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Focus and level of detail
editLots of the electrolysis scientific technical details seem out-of-place here. We have lots of articles, such as electrolysis and electrolytic cell, that discuss how they work. And Wikipedia is not a technical journal, so some of the technical analysis of the reduction potentials might be excessive, and sine of the other tables collecting raw data are probably excessive as well. Instead, we need secondary refs commenting on the significance and comparing them (WP:SECONDARY to provide context rather than having the reader have to compare numbers. If the article is about a certain mix of chemicals, that's what it should talk about most directly.
On the other hand, lots of the technical discussion is completely uncited. This is especially a problem for the material that relates directly to the article's topic, such as the "Comparing methods of water disinfection" table. For example, there's no cite for the apparent opinion or analysis that each method is safe, or what the various "less...production" entries actually mean.
Most severely, the cited refs that I checked do not actually use the term "multi oxidant". Instead, they seem to use "Mixed oxidant". That matches the trade name of a commercial product/disinfection system. DMacks (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 1 September 2015
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
the nominator moved the draft to mainspace
{{requested move/dated|Mixed oxidant}}
Draft:Multi oxidant solution → Mixed oxidant – the cited refs do not actually use the term "multi oxidant". Instead, they seem to use "Mixed oxidant Sarah.Blumen (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Content, Tone, and Wording
editI'm not entirely sure what this article's purpose is, given how it's written. The unneeded technical details, poor grammar, odd choice of capitalization, and general tone do not inspire confidence in the accuracy of the content. The tables are poorly explained, inconsistent, and not overly readable, and the text around them is full of redundancies.
It might be best for the article to be rewritten in its entirety; I'm half convinced it's the script of a late night commercial trying to sell me cleaning fluid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LainOfTheReal (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Confused goal of this article
editThe subject of this article is probably better placed in [Disinfectant], Water purification or Water chlorination. Disinfectant in particular covers this exact subject more succinctly without having to explain what electrolysis is. This article doesn't seem particularly useful, especially since I can't find a source on any of the tables in the latter half and the Applications section is almost blatant advertising for "this process in general." Reconrabbit (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)