Talk:Fluorine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice Article. For me, it's about ready for being a featured article! ~~Awsome EBE123 ^talk_Contribs 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment: "Even through neon atom, isoelectronic with fluoride ion, has a smaller radius than fluorine atom, fluoride ion has a larger electron cloud radius compared to radius of a fluorine atom" looks really confusing. I have no idea on how to reword this. Other than that, everything else is fine. Can somebody do this? FREYWA 04:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

William T. Miller a prominent flourine chemist worked in two important areas, as noted in his Wikipedia biography, "Miller carried out research into chemically resistant materials from which he developed the chlorofluorocarbon polymer used in K-25, the first gaseous diffusion plant constructed for the separation of uranium isotopes. The K-25 plant was a crucial factor in the development of "Little Boy" and other early nuclear weapons. Miller was also the first to synthesize methoxyflurane, a volatile inhalational anesthetic." I think that the role of flourine in helping to win World War II is worthy of mention. The flourine article should also note that organofluorine compounds are used as volatile anesthetic agents. Methoxyflurane was discontinued in most nations as an anesthetic because of its toxic effect on kidney function, and that could be added to the "Toxicology" section. Racepacket (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through and I don't believe that its anywhere near "about ready for being a featured article", but having said that this is not a FAC review.

On the basis of a quick read through, it looks to be a "good" WP:GAN candidate; its certainly appears well referenced and to be comprehensive, but the grammar is poor in some sentences and I'm "tempted" by Racepacket's argument that the WWII first gaseous diffusion plant constructed for the separation of uranium isotopes is worthy of mention - but for fluorine not flourine.

Note: I struck out the above, since I found it is already in the article, in the Etymology and history section. Pyrotec (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have the article go the extra step and add that the these techniques were then used to isolate the radioactive isotope of Uranium in sufficient quantities to make the "Little Boy" bomb that played a key roll in ending World War II. There was a lot of scientific and technical work done in the Manhattan Project which was not on the critical path to success, but the fluorine work was. Racepacket (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a detailed review, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I'm just going to concentrate on "problems", so if I don't have much to say about a particular section/subsection, that probably means its OK. It helps me if any comment/objections/questions about a particular "action" are placed beneath the "action" rather than lumped together at the end. I anticipate that this detailed review could take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Characteristics -
  • Physical -

• As a whole this subsection is poorly referenced, i.e. it is not WP:Verifiable.

I'm working on it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) All problems shown are resolved plus all paras have at least one ref. I guess, it's also done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The first paragraph is unreferenced apart from the last sentence, a statement, and that comes from Britannica. None of the data is verifiable.

The fact cited by Britannica, is a common one in chemistry, so Britannica finally out. Figure in it has a ref now.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - The statement, i.e. "A fluorine atom has nine electrons, which falls just before the extremely stable ten-electron configuration of neon, so a fluorine atom is much more likely to receive the "missing" electron than to lose one; its first ionization energy is 1681 kJ·mol−1, which makes a fluorine atom extremely difficult to oxidize into a monopositive cation, F+.[6]", now seems to be referenced by ref 6 (Dean, John A. (1999). LANGE'S HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY (Fifteenth edition). Britannica.com.) That is a book (see Amazon listing). So I'm not sure were "Britannica.com comes" from. Since it is a book, it has a publisher and and isbn, which should be given in the citation; together with the page number(s). Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a mistake... Fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - The sentence: "Such oxidation of fluorine by extraction of an electron requires such energy that no oxidant is known that can oxidize fluorine to any positive oxidation state." is poorly constructed, using "such" twice.

Fixed. Now OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've copy edited it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - The second and the third paragraphs are unreferenced: I'm certainly not accepting a wikilink (used four times) to another wikipedia article as a WP:Verifiable reference. So none of the ionization energies are verifiable. Perhaps it was not intended to be a citation, more of a foot note (see below)

You're right, it's footnote now. Figures again come up with a wikilink.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Comments have been made, above, about "Even through neon atom, isoelectronic with fluoride ion, has a smaller radius than fluorine atom, fluoride ion has a larger electron cloud radius compared to radius of a fluorine atom" - another example of poor grammar.

I've tried to reword, please, check that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've copy edited it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - Information given in the fourth paragraph is not verifiable using reference 7.

It cites one out of three facts, other two lead from the first one using common laws.

• Well the reference cites the mass, but the paragraph states five facts: the temperature of liquefaction and freezing, plus density (relative and actual), and the molecular mass. Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It actually has boiling and melting points, molecular mass (ref), and density (in g/L and compared to air). The density is lead from molecular mass, since it's a gas. So, I'll provide refs for BP and MP only, tomorrow, the density's obvious using the law. I'm sure none verifiable writes about that and it's clear enough.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, since this is a chemistry article it's WP:Verifiable and Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, all five figures have refs now. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Chemical -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 13 (Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan) is a book, so the relevant page number, or numbers, should be given in the citation, but they are not.

Hydrogen fluoride production is placed on page 844--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) -The sentence "Metal higher fluorides are known for their volatility; this unique property of fluoride is caused by its small radius." is unclear. "Reference 16" is not a reference it is a footnote masquerading as a reference. It should be converted to a footnote (also see above) and a citation provided.

Slightly reworded, so maybe now OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, It's better, thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - The sentence "No attempt has been made to oxidize astatine, francium, four latter actinides, and the transactinides with fluorine, due to the radioactive instability of these elements, though such oxidations are thought to be possible in theory" is in two parts: the first states "that no attempt has been made to ....", I willing to accept that without a citation; but the second part "though such oxidations are thought to be possible in theory" needs a citation.

Is this citation OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Etymology and history -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 38 is a bound volume of papers (out of copyright) that has been published on the web. The article cited is a paper and it has an author, but that is missing from the citation.

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - From a European perspective, I regard the statement "Bromofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons are being phased out in favor of hydrofluorocarbons, due to environmental protection reasons.[42]" as somewhat out of date. Many of these substances have already gone as a result of Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol. Some contries have not yet signed up and some have exemptions (mosly third-world countries). Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT. I don't think any of them can be said to be entirely gone, or ever will be, since as fire-extinguishing gases for closed spaces where people have to breathe them and can't get out (aircraft, primarily), they are irreplaceable. The bromine in them damages the ozone layer for the same reason it puts out fires. Kyoto actually doesn't call for a total ban on brominated Halons (bromofluorocarbons = BFCs), but industry has apparently quit making them. Leading to the absolutely stupid idea that aircraft safety people should "save" what they have. [1] It will run out, of course, and then somebody will need to make it again at great expense, and some people will die from lack of it. The rabid environmentalists, who really do love Earth but hate people, would rather people die in aircraft disasters than release another kg of BFC into the atmosphere, despite the fact that niche use really would not be a siginificant part of the problem. (All of this sort of reminds me of nuclear testing. It not being done for political reasons, but the gap is pretend-- lying to ourselves-- since everybody knows we'll have to restart eventually, after we can no longer trust our aging warheads. It's a quality control issue. The only alternative would be to make "extras" to make up for a certain fraction of "duds.") SBHarris 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed that, so maybe now better?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Production -

• Ref 45 (Jaccaud, M.; Faron, R.; Devilliers, D. and Romano, R) is a book, or section of a book, so page numbers and an ISBN should be given in the citation.

I can't find a digital copy to find pages (which does seem to be impossible without spending over 9000 USD unlike most books), but ISBN given.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry is not very uncommon, I will try to get somebody look for the page number or look myself.--Stone (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I finally found a copy. Done. Note that in the book page numbers begin with 1 each section again and again--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Compounds -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) -Ref 53 should be made into a footnote, its not a reference.

Done. Note that you mentioned refs 65 and 70, which are now 64 and 69, due to removal ref 53 from reflist (to notelist).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 65 is cited as a web link (title and publisher), but its actual a scientific paper with authors, a journal title, etc. It should be properly cited.

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Applications -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 70 appears to be a book, the page numbers should be cited.

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Isotopes -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - This part-sentence needs a copyedit: "Fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance is not the basic one out of all similar effects in science and medicine, but .....". I think it is trying to say something like: "Fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance is not one of the" commmon/frequently-used/etc "magnetic resonance spectrometers/analysers/imagers found in science and medicine, but use of this isotope is quite common." (but you don't have to use my words).#

Reworded. I believe this to be OK--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Elementary state -

• ref 73 is another "Ullmann" ref that needs a page number(s).

Split into two (73 and 97) and both done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Environmental and health issues -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - The status of the C8 Science Panel needs to be clarified in "It is neither lipophilic, unlike chlorinated hydrocarbons, nor directly genotoxic by the C8 Science Panel, but it binds to serum albumin and is excreted primarily from the kidney." It seems to be a committee set up in one specific State of the USA.

Reworded a bit. C8 Science Panel don't seem notable enough, so removed author, leaving, however, the fact--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Looks OK.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. There are a few (just a few) minor issues to resolve; I'll then award GA. Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article has been improved considerably during the course of this review and I'm now happy to be able to award it GA-status. Congratulations on producing a good "chemistry" article.

The article may have potential to become a WP:FAC, but I would strongly recommend that it is is submitted to WP:PR (again) before any submission to WP:FAC, as it could be "failed" if submitted prematurely. A WP:GAN review is not a WP:FAC review.