Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fluorine/archive3

< Wikipedia:Peer review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.117.75.177 (talk) at 16:22, 13 October 2013 (→Jimfbleak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fluorine

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

Main objectives:

1. Footnote format: find issues and fix them. Whole article. Thanks for hands on help.

2. Review of the wikilinks: stem to stern first linking...prefer very low density of blue bumps, dabs, all that).

3. Standard: prose, content, expert review, non-expert, images, boxes/cats/templates. Since it is long, section reviews are fine. For prose glitches or formatting, just fix them please.

-TCO

  • Will have to be scarce during the week, please carry on.
All of you, people, who have taken your time or plan to do so to check this article, thank you very much.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki

  • File:Happy_Pan_Poster.jpg is pretty clearly not the uploader's own work - any idea of source or licensing?
    • Had similar concern. See [1]. Should I get CLindberg to do a registration search? Scrap it?
  • What's a "crash program"?
  • What are the page numbers supposed to be for Barrett 1967? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 740-743
  • What makes askthenerd and gdrc.org reliable?
    • Kill askthenerd. Here are substitutes, please. I think the first is best (since the point is trivial, a textbook is the clearest explanation): [3], [4], [5].
    • I can't find gdrc.org in article. Which link is it?
  • There are a couple of {{cite doi}} awaiting automatic expansion, but with the deny-citationbot tag they're not going to be automatically expanded. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help?  :( (I don't even like doi cruft.)

StringTheory11

  • Probably better to move the compounds section to between the characteristics and occurrences section.
    • Please no. That is is a structural review of the compounds. The general reader can understand the development fine and the "pill" of all that techie content at the front does more damage than help. I am fighting for making technical articles accessible. Chemistry of the Elements has the same structure to put the hard core chemistry at the back.
      • My thoughts were that it would make sense for compounds to come before applications, so that some of the compounds discussed there can be introduced. If you want to do it some other way, though, that's fine by me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only way to know if your way works is to try it. Done.
  • I think there may be too many images, especially galleries. They, at least to me, disrupt the flow of the article, and we should cut back on some of them.
    • killed several images and galleries and shrank the pictures.
  • Any information on the production of non-natural fluorine compounds, not just fluorine gas?
    • I added a para on ECF/CoF3 with fluorocarbon industry and a sentence on fluoropolymer production.

More to come later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LudicrousTripe

I live for tedious repetitive Wikipedia tasks! I will {{Harvnb}} the shit out of them!!! Cheers! LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I like the LDR aspect from the use of these shorter templates (less cruft in edit mode)71.127.137.171 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aside from that, what are the advantages of this system? (I'm not criticizing, I wanna know)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure, though perhaps others know. Personally, I just like {{Harv}}ing the references because it looks wheel pritty and it's how it's done it t3h real-life books!!?!?!?!?!? Adieu! LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

  • "A growing fraction of modern pharmaceuticals contain fluorine" Where is it supported in the body that the percentage is increasing? (I guess that is what "growing fraction" means) I see the use, I don't see the trend.
  • The definition of fluoride seems rather lost and isolated and I question its presence where it is within the lede. It strikes me it is better handled when the term is first used, perhaps as a parenthetical or clause.
    • OK, cut it. [I was pimping the subarticle (linked) and also trying to get an "easy" idea up into the top para...but no big attachment, guess it didn't work.]
  • The lede strikes me as rather jumbled. Is there a system you are using to decide what is in what order?--
    • The lead is very important to the reader and I sweated it, so your comments make me sad. But...that is why I wanted the thing murder boarded. The structure is (1) characteristics of the element itself (2) occurrence which segues into extraction and then history (3) industry and applications, (4) biological aspects. [A few aspects like hazards, environmental, as well as a touch of the structural compound review are added where they seem to fit...mostly within 3.] Please feel free to do a fundamental re-org. Only way to know if there is a better structure is to try it. (P.s. thank you)71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hydrofluoric acid is a weak acid in terms of chemical strength, so "powerful" is a misnomer. HF is noteworthy for its corrosive nature (it eats through glass) as well as the poison danger from skin contact (I believe the 19th century injuries were actually mostly from working with HF). We could also just not bother describing HF's features in lead.
      • Dangerous was used twice in the lede, one seems to be the max. Pick your word. I did notice the way you've packed the lede with words that are strong, don't know if I like that or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cut both usages. Added poisonous (F2) closer to the front of lead.
    • There was a chronological flow in the second para (formation within stars, deposition in the Earth, extraction and naming of the mineral, isolation of the pure element, and use of the pure element), that also matches the order in the article.

Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am starved for time and will look in in short amounts. Why do you want to say STP conditions for the appearance? I understand the significance of STP, but isn't that going to be a stopper for a lot of people? If it doesn't make it totally plebeian, what about room temperature? After all, it doesn't matter what room, if the person in it is still alive, the fluorine is a yellowish gas.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Violent agreement. Hate a techie term when a common one will work.71.127.137.171 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any thoughts on the changes to the lede?
        • I like how you moved the basic description to the second sentence. Not crazy about the arrangement of second para (what is the rationale for order of the sentences?) I think you have to try different things and I have to stay away from it and let you play with it, though.
          • I felt there was cohesion in the arrangement I have. Start with the general (universe), move to the specific (Earth's crust) and then to the even more specific (mineral). Then we have a comparison with the element, which allows us to move back to discussing the element. Since fluorite was involved in the discovery (the stoppers and so forth), it's defensible. I feel it flows. If you don't agree, change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw your edit comment about the 99%. Difficult basically means expensive (not something that is not technically understood), but can also be thought of as difficult in terms of cautions, special materials, etc. Consider that PVC is routinely made from chlorine gas (a massive commodity), but PTFE is made from HF. Also, the sources tend to make a big point about how little fluorine is converted to the element.108.162.44.194 (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly there's also no great demand for elemental fluorine in that form. Just commenting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll look in again as I have time, which may not be until after the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've ce d the first two sections, and will continue in that way, leaving hidden comments. If I feel there's something that would benefit from being brought here, I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, here's something. I think there is the need for the occasional brief lay explanation, perhaps saying something along the lines (where you discuss F adding an electron), that (suggestion) it readily combines with atoms of other elements. And where you discuss difluorine and its weak bond, make it clear (in your own language) that the fact that the bonds are so easily disrupted means that difluorine is not found naturally on Earth. Sorry if I make any chemical gaffes, I haven't really studied this stuff since high school (I passed the AP exam in chemistry and so did not take it in college).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak

I'll have a proper look when I get time, just a couple of things for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lipitor and Prozac— why are the commercial names preferred to generic?
    • I want to use the terms that mean the most to the reader. Similarly, I eschew parentheticals because the exec summary should be direct. The article body has the additional detail. Same applies for Teflon. -TCO
      • I've bent on this and gone with the parenthetical (say both) approach, given two people are put off. My concern is the readers, readers, readers. Think Wiki has a Caesar's wife fear of appearing commercial as well as a bit of faux academic stiffness. But the whole thing was no big deal and in any case, O acceded.
  • Fluorine's outer electrons are relatively separate from each other. Hence, they do not shield each other from the nucleus—I'm not convinced by this. The effective nuclear charge increases because there are more protons in the nucleus, but only the same number of inner, screening, shells. It's true that electrons in the same shell don't shield each other, but that misses the main point

(thanks in advance)

  • decide whether to do conversions for masses. You have 23 kg (51 lb), but metric tonnes later are unconverted (I don't mind, just need consistency)
    • Can we discuss this? (All peeps)? I knew this was coming. The conversion of metric tons to short tons is 1.10 (to long is 0.98!). Given the inherent swaggish accuracy of the data (market estimates), I hate to clutter up the prose with a bunch of parenthetical numbers. Really hate slowing the reader with cruft. Anyhow, I could do some cheesy note to this effect at first usage of ton. Or I could just put the parens in. Or I could strip all conversions. And note the issue comes up with temperatures too. I sorta liked having them at the front for phase changes, but then really hate having to have them in the compounds section. Actually my inclination is to strip them all out. It's a science article, not geography or weather. I'm a red white and blue hunter killer and even I'm fine with metric in a chemistry article. I think I will just strip. You all need to back me up if someone gets unhappy they are gone.  ;-)71.127.137.171 (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stripped them all. If I missed one, fix pls.
  • Within Earth's crust, fluorine is the thirteenth most abundant— I'd put "the Earth and not hyphenate
    • Done
  • outside of temporary existence in stars—its, rather than of
    • Done
  • (described below Organic compounds section). —I don't like this. I'd put in a note, or at least put the section title in quotes
    • Note made. Yeah, I am sort of threading a needle (we have been back and forth on having CF4 in this section).
  • oxygen is at oxidation state +2) —perhaps formal oxidation state? We know it's not really ionic
    • Good. Done.
  • The discovery was touted—touted seem too informal
    • Reworded and made active voice.
  • Streptomyces cattleya—italics for binomial

Thanks. Keep the pass through going!  :-) 98.117.75.177 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal

  • You should use some {{quote}} template for the Nobel citation. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added one. If it can be made better, please help us, this techie stuff hard on me.
  • For the sake of structure, CF4 should be discussed/mentioned in the nonmetal fluorides section. Nergaal (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added something. (Please note, we've had it before and been asked to rip it out...starting to get on the merry go round. Please tweak the wording if you want.)

-Please carry on. Seeing you go through the thing and appreciate the front to back work.108.162.44.194 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-The Barret 1967 paper covers the details of the violent phase transition (click DOI and see last sentence of abstract...is more in the paper itself). Ref was one sentence down (now duplicated) to both sentences. Need someone to fix the formatting glitch (fn numbering).

I removed it because it seems to be a case of TMI. Having a note there might work better and be less distracting to a casual reader.
OK. I put it in a note.

Hawkeye7

What a great article. Very impressive. I have read through the historical and industrial sections. My only quibble is with this bit:

Karl O. Christe discovered a purely chemical preparation of fluorine gas. However, he stated in his work that the basics were known 50 years before the actual reaction. The main idea is that some metal fluoride anions do not have a neutral counterpart (or those are very unstable) and their acidifying would result in chemical oxidation, rather than formation of the expected molecules. Christe lists the following reactions as a possible way:

There are two awkward bits here: "or those are very unstable" and "Christe lists the following reactions as a possible way". For the first I would suggest "or have ones that are very unstable" - the grammatical awkwardness being about "those". The second changes tense from past to future, and the use of "possible" makes it sound at first reading that he suggested rather than discovered it. I suggest something in the active like like "Christie's process was:"

But these are just quibbles. I think that it is really good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picked me up big time with the compliment. Aussie Aussie oi, oi. Made the changes, tweak more if needed.108.162.44.194 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

  • Agree with using atorvastatin and fluoxetine in the article - the trade names are receding in popularity as generic versions multiply anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think current state of readers is what matters and many more recognize the 3 brand names than the generic names, but I met you halfway and went the parenthetical route.
  • This phase is transparent and soft with significant disorder of the molecules. - dunno what that means (but I can guess) - link or explain?
    • I assume disorder is your sticking point. We don't have a good blue link for this and I can't do an easy quick explanation. The way for me to really handle this is more slickly with a picture of the xtal structure. (perhaps a diptych of the two phases). Is a very nice nice diagram of the disordered cubic phase in one of the science papers (I think Pauling). Shows molecules rotating (better than the KCN diagram below from Wiki). I need some significant help in getting that diagram sketched (or an equivalent, not sure if a rights issue for us to just recreate it...as it is diagrammatic) as well as just copy of the article (I don't hold it any more). I have tried in the past but not gotten it done. Either people said it was too hard or Matsci gave it a try but I don't think he had the right paper for the diagram and his image really did not look good.
 
KCN disorder. The diagram I am thinking of for cubic F is even better as it shows diatomic molecules wobbling
Actually I thought that crystallographic disorder is a notion that many users will probably not know. I tried to find an appropriate wikilink but failed. I strongly suggest to have some sort of wikilink for those outside of chemistry (although I bet there are many organic chemists that will probably not know either). Nergaal (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone start a stub, then. We all think one is needed. I gave a reference to a review (in note). We can build a para long explanation pretty easily. could get lots of incoming links from articles like KCN.71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some folks willing to help with this (can't remember who now as I've not buffed chemical articles meself...) - need to think/jog memory...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added an explanatory footnote--if we got a diagram, Cas, not even sure if we would show it in this article. I had a centered table of alpha fluorine and the phase diagram earlier, but had cut THAT, based on desire for lower image/text ratio from another critic. If I had the picture would definitely use it in the spinout article, though. See here for an earlier attempt to get the diagram made. MatSci made an attempt for me too (see Commons), but he didn't do it right...it lacks the illustrative impact of the 1970 Pauling diagram.108.162.44.194 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link to diagram of beta-fluorine: [6]. 98.117.75.177 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axl

  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "In the universe, fluorine is rare, for a light element." Why not "for an element" rather than "for a light element"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is not rare, for "an element", but only "for a light element". In general, light elements (say through iron) are more common than heavy elements in the universe because they are formed in normal nuclear fusion of burning stars rather than in rare nova explosions. See discussion in article body. If it's not good enough, than I can add some explanatory note or work on the text with a sentence or two of explanation: "In general, elements are more common the lighter they are...blabla..."71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fluorine/archive3&oldid=577005793"