Talk:Tetrasodium tris(bathophenanthroline disulfonate)ruthenium(II)

Advertisement?[edit]

I have read the article and I found no advertisement in it (indeed, it is written in an academic style). May be "RuBPS" is not clear, but I have found 60 matches in scholar.google.com for "RUBPS", 51 for "RUBPS proteins", 47 for "RUBPS Ruthenium". From the latter, I guess it means Ruthenium (II) tris (bathophenantroline disulfonate), or maybe it is a superset of Ruthenium bathophenantroline sulfonates... but I am not able to assert it because all the papers found require subscription. Rjgodoy 06:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly found no ad's in the article unless its advertising this chemical/compound. Borisshah 2007-04-12T23:39

I think it is not advertising the chemical, it is only explaining what it is useful for. I suggest removing the template. Rjgodoy 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor who placed the tag felt that it read like one of "technical data sheets" which chemical companies put out to encourage chemists to use their products. However, I cannot find the source on the web so I shall assume good faith. The name of the compound is spelt incorrectly as well, but I shall go and fix that :) Physchim62 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the same person who is behind http://www.ruthenium.ag.vu (Andreas Lamanda): this site appears to be the work of a PhD student rather than being a commercial site. I shall remove the advert tag, although this still needs lots of work doing on it! Physchim62 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I have no recollection of why I marked this as an advertisement. I don't really see it as such now - aside from the fact that this may have been written by someone to promote one's own research. Sorry about the confusion. --Ed (Edgar181) 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this scientific were the author of the article, I think he/she has fulfilled the guidelines for WP:COI, since there is only a paragraph about Lamanda's work, and only one reference to papers of his/her... I am not an expert on this topic, so I cannot assert whether it is significant (WP:N), however it seems to be and I will assume good faith. Rjgodoy 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup - Incomprehensible[edit]

This article is inaccessable to the layman. It needs to have a proper intro that defines what this is, and how it is relevant. The sourcing also needs to be completely redone in standard fashion. I attempted an intro based on the content, but I'm not a chemist, so my effort is a shot int he dark. Expert needed. --Lendorien 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tetrasodium tris(bathophenanthroline disulfonate)ruthenium(II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529140701/http://192.129.24.144/licensed_materials/10216/contents/00/00002/fpaper/s102160000002ch000.html to http://192.129.24.144/licensed_materials/10216/contents/00/00002/fpaper/s102160000002ch000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup - Incomprehensible part 2[edit]

Further to the 2007 comment - the article is still not readily comprehended by 'persons with knowledge at "popular science" level.' Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]