Talk:Polythiophene

Failed "good article" nomination

It normally can take a month or more to get an article evaluated for GA status; there is a backlog. This article looked especially interesting, so opted to review it within minutes of nomination. I was sorely disappointed.

This might be an appropriate article for the International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization but this isn't a technical journal, this is an encyclopedia. The article doesn't need to be written to a third-grade level, but it needs to be something a reader of Science or Scientific American can understand. You need to put this in terms that a brilliant high school student, wanting to do a science fair project, can understand if he struggles with it.

Unfortunately, the parts that are accessible to someone who has a 1970s-era minor in chemistry are left unsourced, or even unsaid. For instance, there's no reference given to show that Heeger, MacDiarmid, and Shirakawa even got the 2000 nobel prize, and worse, no explanation as to their discovery took place. Did they have the material and discover the properties, or were they searching for a material, already having the properties in mind? How did it happen that they were working together? Details like that aren't necessarily important for a journal article, but they are very much important to an encyclopedia article.

Your style of references is quite satisfactory for researchers in the field, who can access the journals with a 3-minute walk, but for a high school sophomore, it may take great effort, expense and weeks of waiting to obtain a copy of "Nilsson, K. P. R.; Andersson, M. R.; Inganäs, O. J. Phys.: Condes. Matter 2002, 14, 10011–10020". He should have the name of the article, so he has some idea of whether it's even relevant to his science fair project.

There are no obvious POV issues, there are no edit wars going on, and the illustrations are quite satisfactory. The problem is with the writing and the references.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Things to do

• Convert the figures to SVG files-- the PNGs look pixellated.
• Add DOI links to references (is there a bot that can do this?)
• Rewrite lead paragraph, add generic structure, and just motivate article better.
• Add section on biosensor applications.

Dflanagan 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked on the help desk a question about this, and apparently it is not possible to cite one reference multiple times. Perhaps including it more than twice will suffice? They directed me to Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources. --HappyCamper 15:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I managed to fix all the footnotes that I wanted to use more than once using the "ref label" function. It just took a bit of concentration to make sure I didn't get any out of order. I also noticed a few typos-- I had better copyedit the entire thing. Dflanagan 08:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI there is a way of doing this that keeps track of numbers, and can use the same ref multiple time, you can find the documentation here. I've found it really easy to use once you do a couple. Regards SeanMack 10:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Also another handy thing I found was there are spell checkers out there for various browsers to help speed typo checking:

• Spell checker for IE:

http://www.iespell.com/download.php

• Spellchecker for Firefox and the Mozilla Suite

SpellBound 0.7.3

http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/index

http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/install

• Firefox 1.5:

http://www.wildtangents.net/2006/02/04/how-to-get-spellbound-spell-checker-working-with-firefox-1501/

not a good article

The current article lacks serious numbers of links to other articles making it difficult to understand for laymans, I do not consider this a good article. V8rik 19:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I have to disagree; perhaps difficult for the very young, but I found sufficient links to allow for rapid understanding, & my formal chemistry education stopped in grade 12. The fact that this article aims above rather than at the lowest common denominator underscores that encyclopedias exist to educate, not just tabulate simple/popular information. Bridesmill 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• let me clarify, my only concern is the absense of links, I made a partial edit so make myself clear. The text itself is okay, nothing needs to be erased, nothing needs to be added. I think that if you provide the necessary links there is not a topic too difficult for Wiki too include. V8rik 23:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: It is certainly not a GA. The lead desperately needs to be understandable to the common reader. Say something like "polythiophene is a chemical that is liquid at room temparature. It reacts with X, Y, Z and is used for making A, B, C. In industry, ....etc...." Make the lead understandable. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as not understandable --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better lead might help?

Not all encyclopedia articles are meant to be completely understandable to a lay reader - this is an encylopedia article, not a teach-yourself-chemistry guide - but I think there is a significant flaw in this article at the moment. Conducting polymers are one of the most exciting avenues of modern chemistry, but most people reading this article will get no sense of this at all. The very first sentence contains the term "conjugated π-orbitals" - this is clearly going to be utterly incomprehensible to 95% of people, even with the wikilink. I suspect a lot of people reading this article will not be able to work out: what type of chemical is this? What properties (other than conductivity, which comes across pretty clearly) does it have? Why is the fact it conducts so special? What applications will it have in future? The "applications" section is not only pretty heavy-going technically, but it is so far down the article that a reader would have to struggle through the "structure" and "synthesis" sections first - maybe the sections could be rearranged, since the casual/semi-interested reader (people may well be looking this article up because they have heard there is a bit of buzz about its use in windows but may not have the chemistry knowledge to deal with all the technical parts) will almost certainly not get that far, and the applications section doesn't seem dependent on the preceding sections. More importantly, since this is a chemical that has really useful/extraordinary properties, and may well have an impact on everyday life, can't more of this be summarized in the lead - preferably before talking about "conjugated π-orbitals"? There are things in this article that an utter chemistry dunce should be able to take away from it but at present I doubt that they would be able to. I will have a go at drafting a better lead at some point in the near future, although it would be nice to see what someone who is more of an expert on the topic can produce. Some relevant guidelines from WP:LEAD are:

The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."

I think the vast majority of people would agree the current lead doesn't achieve this. For an article of this size, the lead should be about 2 or 3 paragraphs, so there is definitely space to include some introductory, some technical, some "properties", some "structure" and some "possible applications" bits. I think that would be a good mix, and would be an improvement on the current one. Any thoughts? Personally I would recommend moving the "Reviews" section out of the lead and into a subsection of its own, probably near the "active reseach" subsection - anything mentioned in the lead should be expanded on further down, and conversely most of the stuff further down should be summarized by the lead. At the present the "Reviews" paragraph doesn't achieve this - perhaps a mention in the lead that there have been a number of comprehensive reviews of the subject, the first in 1981, and leave it at that? TheGrappler 20:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As an afterthought - technical terms that aren't wikilinked could really do with a brief definition in brackets. "Backbone" comes to mind - I doubt anyone will start a backbone (chemistry) article, so links density alone can't solve this one. A brief explanation in brackets probably will. TheGrappler 20:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should concern ourselves too much with diluting the article to make it more accessible to more users. That would probably come only after polymer related topics are more developed on Wikipedia. At the moment, there are very few supplementary articles that would help towards this end. The article is technical, but presents a wealth of valuable information too. It may be better to write conducting polymer targeted to a more general audience instead. I don't think this articles needs to be "perfect", although it would be wonderful to see it on the front page someday as a featured article. However, the nature of technical articles makes this very difficult to do so. Phase-shift keying and Rayleigh fading are probably other excellent examples of technical articles which would be nearly impossible to reach featured status... --HappyCamper 01:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nobody is suggesting any dilution of the article. What is being suggested is essentially: link relevant terms if possible; give brief (possibly bracketed) explanations in places where this is not possible (e.g. "backbone"); rearrange the article so the more accessible (and practically important for 95% of the population) part is towards the top, not "buried"; add in a less technical "everyday language" comment about possible applications (at the moment, the applications section doesn't quite do this); and make the lead comply with WP:LEAD (at present, it doesn't: the review section does not belong in the lead, according to WP:LEAD, and a brief non-technical summary of what this chemical is and why it is important should come before it gets talking about conjugated π-orbitals). None of that requires content to be removed. These suggestions do not call for such an influx of non-technical "pop science" or "elementary science" that the article would be rendered unreadable to chemists - nobody is suggesting incorporating the entire "beginner's guide to organic chemistry". A rearrangement to increase accessibility and reflect the article's relevance to the audience (and audience interest) seems harmless and sensible. The fact that the first couple of paragraphs are a ridiculous breach of the style guidelines ought to be fixed, but that's easy enough, since this article contains a lot of useful, non-technical information that I think any well-informed person should be aware of. The present structure buries it and renders it largely incomprehensible, but that can be fixed too, so I don't see why it shouldn't be. Rayleigh fading and phase-shift keying are actually pretty similar to this - they are fantastic technical articles but don't do themselves any favours either in their structuring or by not taking full heed of WP:LEAD. Please don't misinterpret us - people are arguing for articles like this to be made accessible, not dumbed down. It's a forgivable crime not to know what a conjugated π-orbital is (I do and you do, but how many general readers do too?) and it shouldn't exclude somebody from the knowledge present in this article that doesn't require that prior knowledge. There actually is knowledge in this article that a lay reader could take away, knowledge that a High School chemistry student could take away, knowledge that a chemistry undergrad could take away, and probably knowledge that grad student in a different field of chemistry could take away. The editors of this article have done a fantastic job putting in all these "onion skin" layers of knowledge. What it hasn't got quite right yet is structuring, phrasing and clarifying the information contained in it in a way that allows every reader to access their own "onion skin" of knowledge, without either having to wade through stuff that is pitched well below their level or stuff that seems designed to confuse them. That's a fine balance to hit! But it's basically a stylistic one, not a scientific one (the science in here is great). There is no such thing as the perfect article, but the reason you and I are writing this encyclopedia, rather than working on organicchemistrywiki.org or poststructuralistphilosophywiki.org, is because we are writing general articles for a general audience: "The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people." If that could be applied as well in our science and technology articles as it is in our biographies, history and geography articles, then Wikipedia will be the best general reference for science and technology topics on the web, if not in the world. This article seems as good a place to start applying it as any :-) TheGrappler 05:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As a specialist in the topic, I can confirm that the article is extraordinary quality and is written in a simplest possible way. Such a scientific issue cannot be written in kid's language. This article is far superior in quality over, to my estimation, 80% of Wikipedia content, and should be returned the status of excellent article ASAP. Alexander Kelin 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Has the image of fluorescent polythiophene in the NMR tube been altered? UV light shouldn't be able to pass through Pyrex glass.

Is Figure 1 correct?

In Figure 1, at the top there are 6 double bonds. At the bottom there are 7 double bonds (between the brackets), the chain gained electrons instead of loosing them, as is indicated in the text. A bipolaron is not neutral by itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.109.19.179 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing citation for oxidative synthesis

"Given the difficulties of studying a system with a heterogeneous, strongly oxidizing catalyst that produces difficult to characterize rigid-rod polymers, the mechanism of oxidative polymerization is by no means decided. However, the radical cation mechanism shown in Figure 6 is generally accepted as the most likely route for PT synthesis."

That's a bold statement. Can anyone supply references? Any papers that take this finding by Barbarella et al. and support their model? Especially, since different papers e.g. by Niemy et al. use different monomer units (alkyl chains) or solvents which might majorly affect the mechanism.

One should note that Barbarella et al. looked into alkyl_thiol_ side chains. The sulfur atom might play a major part in stabilising the cation in 2-position by supplying electron density - or (potentially?) by destablising the 5-position. This need not necessarily be reflective of the behaviour of "neat" (carbon-hydrogen) alkyl chains.

I've had a look through articles of the last ten years which cite Barbarella et al. and which specifically deal with polythiophene synthesis. No specific mentioning/verification of the radical cation species being the most likely intermediate.

I suggest to change the sentence to something more along the lines of: "Given the difficulties of studying a system with a heterogeneous, strongly oxidizing catalyst that produces difficult to characterize rigid-rod polymers, the mechanism of oxidative polymerization is by no means decided until more in-depth studies of the reaction mechanism will be conducted. However, of the cited sources the radical cation mechanism (shown in Figure 6, bottom) seems the most well-documented route for PT synthesis."

These sources are not very strong on their own but I agree that Barbarella seems the most detailed and most trustworthy paper. However, it's very difficult to quantify since there is not a lot of data available. unsigned comment of October 4, 2016

About 2 papers/day appearing on PT

In SciFinder, on the topic "polythiophene": 18248 references overall, 15081 since the year 2000, of which 440 are reviews. 213 reviews since 2010. Top cited reviews since 2010:

• Conducting-polymer-based supercapacitor devices and electrodes By Snook, Graeme A.; Kao, Pon; Best, Adam S. From Journal of Power Sources (2011), 196(1), 1-12.  DOI:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.06.084
• Hybrid nanostructures based on titanium dioxide for enhanced photocatalysis By Reddy, Kakarla Raghava; Hassan, Mahbub; Gomes, Vincent G. From Applied Catalysis, A: General (2015), 489, 1-16.DOI:10.1016/j.apcata.2014.10.001
• Research progress on polymer-inorganic thermoelectric nanocomposite materials By Du, Yong; Shen, Shirley Z.; Cai, Kefeng; Casey, Philip S. From Progress in Polymer Science (2012), 37(6), 820-841. DOI:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.11.003
• Polyselenophenes By Patra, Asit; Bendikov, Michael From Journal of Materials Chemistry (2010), 20(3), 422-433.DOI:10.1039/B908983G

--Smokefoot (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)