Talk:Rhodocene/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

No issues with these criteria, so I will continue with a full review below.

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Taking a step into my work world to review this article, rather than the sports articles I usually review on my off hours. This is a quick, interesting read that is fairly close to GA criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Just a few notes here:

• Rather than a parenthetical reference to the 18 electron rule (oh, how that brings back memories), a quick explanation would be helpful here. Something like "18 electron organometallic complexes are stable, and rhodocene with its 19 valence electrons is highly reactive...."
• Numbers and units should have non-breaking spaces ( ) inserted.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All look good.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Possibly a brief mention on applications, or the lack thereof, just for completeness sake.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars here.

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No issues here.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   These issues are quite minor, thus I will place it on hold

Additional comments

It is a well-written article, but is missing some essential parts (point 2. above), namely applications and health issues (history is somewhat covered in "Synthesis" but could be expanded). Please add whatever reliable material is available on that. Those parts will also make the article more accessible to a general reader - the article is rather technical now. Also, would it be possible to add basic information to the chembox, such as appearance, density, solubility, melting/boiling points, etc? Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had a similar concern regarding the breadth of coverage, particularly in relation to applications (if any), as well as the history of discovery and study of the compound. There is a little bit of information about the history in the "Synthesis" section, but there is probably more to say (maybe even a separate "History" section?). The lead also feels a bit short and a bit too technical as well. Perhaps a few sentences aimed at the lay reader could be added there. Nsk92 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the "History" section. Regarding "The discovery of ferrocene and its "remarkable stability" in 1951...": Perhaps expand this bit a little, explaining the discovery by whom and under what circumstances (during the study of something or other). Nsk92 (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... it's a work in progress!  :) EdChem (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from Nominator

Firstly, thank you to all three reviewers for their comments and suggestions. I have made the following changes:

• I have re-written the lede to include more content, and to reflect the historical context explained in the new 'History' section
• I have added a 'History' section, expanding on the context of the cobalticinium / rhodicinium work in light of ferrocene, and noting the contributions particularly of Fischer and Wilkinson. I have also referenced and linked to their 1973 Nobel Prize for sandwich compounds.
• I have expanded the structure section to better introduce the 18-electron rule.
• I have added a section on a biomedical application involving a radioactive ruthenocenyl-haloperidol compound that beta-decays to the rhodocenyl-haloperidol compound that then oxidises to the rhodicinium-haloperidol.
• I am unaware of any other medical / technological application, but would be happy to add more if anyone can direct me towards reliable sources that I have missed
• I am also unaware of any data on health consequences of ingestion - again, happy to add if anyone can find references, I can get the sources and add the data
• I have no information to add to the infobox... likely, MP, BP, etc are unknown given the dimerisation of rhodocene and its rapid protonation in solution. The 1953 JACS paper does given the colours of solutions of several salts and elemental analysis data, but not other data on those compounds - not sure if any of that is useful
• I have added & nbsp ; everywhere I think I am supposed to... happy to be corrected
• As far as "too technical" goes, I recognise that I have troubles here, and I hope I am improving. Any further suggestions welcomed, or if anyone knows of other editor(s) with whom I might collaborate who could help in this regrad
• I am going to post to the talk pages of each reviewer to advise that I have made changes, and to ask for further input. Sorry if this is the incorrect protocol - this is my first article from scratch and my first GA nomination, so please excuse any ignorance. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed with how far you have brought the article based on the guidance offered here. I will have to give it a thorough read over, and I will wait for input from the other reviewers, but I think we are well on the way to making this a good article. Canada Hky (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone has had an opportunity to say anything they might have wanted to say, and I believe most of the concerns have been addressed. I'm going to promote Rhodocene to GA. Canada Hky (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Canada Hky for the review work, and to everyone else who provided input. I am gratified that the article has been judged as GA-standard.  :) EdChem (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)