Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fluorine/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Fluorine

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked hard on fluorine, so I think it can't have its previous quality rank anymore; I believe, it's now worth more than C. But I mustn't decide on my own-- I'm opening a peer review in order to re-rank this Top-importance C (like Iron at some point) and improve further; I hope to make it a FA at some point; everyone's welcome to check that against A-class (my current target) and B-class (my plan B) criteria; I'll be there to point your views and do the further work.

So, in short, I want to:

  • re-rate it as an A-class
  • (if possible) bring to the condition of a FA to make it a possible FAC;
  • if first two failed, then just to make it a B and get things that are needed to improve it further.

I guess, that's it. Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time now, but I will come back to give more details. Here are a few tips for now:

  • Britannica is a very bad reference. For example, you said in the lead that: To date, it is the only chemical element not to be oxidized to form any positive ion by other chemicals.[1] which is wrong (helium and neon?)
    I agree that the use of Britannica should be avoided for claims such as this. Chemistry information should be sourced to chemistry publications, not to general-purpose encyclopedias. Similarly, facts which may change over time should not be sourced to publications which are updated on a timescale of years (if at all). The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is an excellent source for this sort of thing which is published annually. Most good libraries will have a copy of it in their reference section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even say so. I don't know/remember why I linked this with it (must be a mistake). I suggest no link. Would that be fine, if other 1-17 groups are not in need to explain they can be oxidized to a positive, and all the noble gases are explained in Noble gas compounds section (Kr, Xe and Rn have at least difluorides with Wikipedia articles, there are also HHeF, HArF and even NeF given serious references)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • physical could contain boiling/melting points, and be a bit more expanded to contain some more information about the atomic properties: ionization energy, anionic radius (smallest)
  Done --R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • isotopes: talk a bit about 19F NMR (frequency and sensitivity)
  • history: 1906 was the second Nobel yes? it is probably worth noting that
It was the sixth Nobel Prize in Chemistry and the first one for him. Why is it worth nothing? It's worth, I think, to be mentioned.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • production: might be interesting to talk a bit about fluorides, or other commercially important compounds (as F2 is really rarely used)
  • compounds: put it as a separate section after characteristics one and merge it with the Ng one
  Done by some else; I did check that, I think, it's really done. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT work with the article! Keep it up! Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by ebe123; I checked all, made just 1 fix and it's excellent!-Ebe123 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by stone

edit
  • Lead
*Citing sources is only necessary for highly controversial issues, here only for water fluoridation.
  • Britannica as tertiary source should be avoided better sources are books.

Done the first one. In case of Britannica, removed only from lead and any serious (disputable) statements, but left on minor issues books don't probably talk about. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chemical
*Difference to chlorine it forms more covalent bonds to hydrogen
*noble gas compounds are mentioned twice while the salts and the coordination compounds of fluoride are not mentioned.

Ng comps mentioned once, but about salts something appeared, something about H-F bond.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Occurrence
  • mineral fluorite, which is widespread the phosphate,fluoride minerals are also very common . Is there a possibility of mentioning how the fluorite deposits are formed. Is fluoride a incompatible element in the Goldschmidt classification?

I've written something about minerals mining; something was added about minerals themselves. Why is Goldschmidt classification needed? It's not used widespread anyway or anything.--R8R Gtrs, temporarily out of account83.237.97.84 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • organofluorine compounds are rare are there others than fluoroacetate and fluoroethanol?
  • History
    The teflon story has to be told.
    The Freon story has to be told discovery of Freon
Do you really think so? Article is big now; further enlargement could be bad, especially with that teflon and freon tell about that properly.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Everybody encountered the two and it is similar in importance to the Manhattan project.
I added a few sentences on Teflon and Freon.
  • Production
  • Here the weight given to the chemical routes is much to large. Both sections are the same length they should be 1:1000.Best would be to move the chemical routes to chemistry of fluorine or fluorine compounds.
Why? It spans over a little space but is very notable.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section has the same length than the section about electrolysis and this is wrong proportion. Expanding the electrolysis section might help. The chemical synthesis is better suited in the chemistry section, because this production was done once and has no significance beyond curiosity.--Stone (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The industrial production reads like I can do it at home on my kitchen desk. There a little more text about the exact way to get it would be nice. The chlorine article is a little bit more descriptive.
  • Is the gas stored and transported in liquid or under pressure? at the end
  • Compounds
  • To talk in length about strength of an acid and not using pKa is strange.
  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inorganic compounds
  • Why is calcium fluoride preeminant in occurrence?
  • Why is calcium fluoride so much less soluble than the chloride.
  • The First row periodic table elements behave a lot different than the later row elements and this has to be stated somewhere in the article.

Latter two things are already in the article, in Chemical--R8R Gtrs, temporarily out of account83.237.97.84 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Organofluorine compounds
  • strength of many fluorinated acids there a pKa of two corresponding acids would help.
One acid removed, but another one given as an example. It's readable, check that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applications
  • The use of fluorite in steel production might be the largest application.
  • The production of synthetic cryolite is an other important one.
  • The perfluoroctyl derivatives used for anti stick applications
  • (The holocaust memorial in Berlin is coated with perfluorocoating to prevent vandalism )

The last one's interesting but probably shouldn't appear, just because of article's enormous size. The third one isn't important. Not widespread, I mean, not even close to that (that worth maybe nothing, but I haven't found a single ref saying perfluoroctyl derivatives used for anti-stick applications). The second one actually was in the article, but I've expanded a bit. The first is the only one still to be added.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The production or occurrence section could be expanded with the main sources for the fluorine and fluoride used. I recommend the book:
    Industrial minerals & rocks (pages 460ff) or
    USGS or
    Mineral Yearbook or
    surface mining13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    doi:10.1162/jiec.2007.1075 Accounting for Fluorine: Production, Use, and Loss

I'm not sure it's now actually necessary. You may be tired of that, but the article's big and, which is more important, those sections explain the subject properly.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources

:Why is The Wooden Periodic Table. a credible source?

Holleman needs page numbers
Why isgdrc.org a credible source?
Why is Scorecard a credible source?

The first one removed several days after renewal; the third and fourth are also gone; without a book, I can't type pages for Holleman...--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now much better, but it has some way to go. Thanks for your work on the article! I like it to see that somebody attacks the problem of the low quality article from the upper right corner of the PSE. --Stone (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work on the upgrade. --Stone (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Use of fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in assessing the process of tuberculous spondylitis has to be expanded.

Expanded a bit. Does anyone think now it's alright?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second round from stone

edit
  • Characteristics Physical
  • Not all numbers and paragraphs have a source.
Slowly the number of unreferenced paragraphs drop.-- Stone (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inorganic compounds
  • No source given for the whole paragraph.
  • Organofluorine compounds
  • No source given for the two paragraphs.
  • Elemental fluorine
  • microelectromechanical systems needs source
  • Fluorine containing compounds
  • potassium fluoride, and sodium hexafluoroaluminate anti-reflective coatings for mirrors needs source
  • Uses of isotopes of fluorine
    One point why uranium hexafluoride can be enriched is that (238-U)(19-F)6 can be separated from (235-U)(19-F)6
    While the in the hypothetical case of (238-U)(18-F)5(19-F)1 has the same mass than (235-U)(19-F)2(19-F)4. The monoisotopicity of fluorine makes it an ideal partner for all enrichments processes based on compounds.
  Done. Also, something about fluorine-18 positron emission tomography.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fluorine containing compounds
The applications section should explicitly state what are large applications and what are the minor ones.
  • The use of fluorite in steel production might be the largest application.
The production or occurrence section could be expanded with the main sources for the fluorine and fluoride used. I recommend the book:

there should be a check if all sources are credible. --Stone (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other talks

edit

Fluorine is now an A-class article. Does anyone want to nominate it for WP:GAN or WP:FAC? —Terrence and Phillip 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not until the issues listed here are fixed. Nergaal (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not too early? It's still in process of being written. At the point we'll finish on it, it'll get stable and just very good, someone definitely should nominate it for WP:FAC, but not on GAN, since an A should look for FA, not GA. It'll take some serious work even through more than a half is now done.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in WP:ELEM we kind of decided some time ago that A<GA (just because there is not real review process); A's are usally GA-worthy that need copyedits and a second editor's check (usually the GAN reviewer). Nergaal (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think for me the Peer reviewing is over and done! I like the article, but for sure it needs some polishing in language and copy editing. One point I will never get is to kill all items on the endless Manual of Style list. For me we should first get it to GAN and after some work by the chemical elements project we will try a FAC. --Stone (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reviews and work, these were very helpful! If anyone can add something on minor things, similar to those discussed on a recent californium peer review, please, add them! I, however, still hope to bring it directly to FAC without GAN (similar to californium, but without a comparison, since californium wasn't edited so heavily), but, at least, I'd better try to reach high that so not (even through GAN does make some sense).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall Comments: Over all it looks pretty good, although, per Stone above, I agree that some of the text needs polishing. Here's a few comments that I hope will be useful:

  • "The free element, never found in nature..." I'm not sure this is true. It probably exists in the ISM[1] and as cations in stars and planetary nebulae.[2]
  • "dental caries" should be wikilinked.
  • "Fluorine has only one naturally-occurring isotope, fluorine-19..." I think this is not quite true. Fluorine-18 is believed to be created in novae explosions.[3], [4] p. 19., [5]
  • There are a number of occurrences of ", and" (with a redundant comma), many of which would work just as well with just an "and".
  • Some of the images use Image: rather than File: and a few also need alt= text per WP:ALT.
  • The references section will need some work. For example:
    • The format of names in the references section is very inconsistent. There is, for example, "Jarry, Roger L.; Miller, Henry C.", which is okay. But there is also "Olivares M and Uauy R", "Lidin P.A., Molochko V.A.,", "Lewars,, Errol G.", "Ken Croswell" and "H. Moissan". These are likely to be flagged during the FAC, so best to take care of them now.
    • I believe that the use of Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference is frowned upon.
    • Could you find a better reference than "About.com"?
    • The "NuDat 2.1 database - fluorine-18" ref. has a citation needed flag.
    • "A recent discussion of world fluorite production and export" needs a better citation format, as does "Discovery of fluorine", http://books.google.de/books?id=oWoChuYV2GUC&pg=PA381, &c.
    • You looked before I was able to start the doi-bot, sorry.--21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Does every link in the "External links" section conform to WP:EXT?

Thanks and good luck with the article.—RJH (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference britannica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fluorine/archive1&oldid=737709053"