Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fluorine/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:51, 15 June 2011 [1].

Fluorine

edit

Fluorine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it finally meets the criteria. I've been working on it several months; that's my first FAC and I promise to address any point pointed with two days (except possibly for weekends, but I'll be back to help on working days anyway). Of course, I support as nominator.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Oppose until multiple referencing issues have been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 15:02, May 5, 2011 Comment—I reviewed this article during the PR process and it seemed in decent shape. Here's a few minor concerns:

  • "The high affinity for electrons of fluorine...". Should this be "The high affinity of fluorine for electrons"? Otherwise it seems ambiguous.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most fluorine is created either during a supernova ... or when a blue Wolf-Rayet star massing over 40 solar masses ..." A. Renda et al. (2004) specifically mention Type II supernovae, rather then all types of supernovae. (I believe this is true in most subsequent journal articles on the subject.) Also, the paper says that AGB stars were an important contributor early in the history of the galaxy. Hence the statement is only partly true and you may need to add a proviso.
    I'm not really sure, that's out of my comfortable zone, is this better?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's better, thanks. I'm not sure how necessary listing the reaction series is for the description, but it's your call.—RJH (talk)
  • Does "ready reactions" have some specific physical meaning?
    "ready" word removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It can even oxidize elemental nitrogen to give nitrogen trifluoride". Can the text explain why this is especially significant?
    Done?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please consider re-writing that sentence? It doesn't flow very well and I had to re-read it several times to make sure I understood it properly. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
    I think it's now good. If still not, please, add a better variant--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you trim the redundant additive terms where appropriate: "Additionally", "Furthermore", "also"?
    Alsos a bit cut, the previous two fully removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - Elements are fun! Canada Hky (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything in the "See also" section is linked in the article.
    Yes, MOS recommend not to repeat links in main body and See also section, but per common sense these are left (which is also allowed by MOS)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored, however--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now totally done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on hydrogen fluoride and hydrofluoric acid is a bit vague. An introduction similar to that in the main article, with the chemical formula and the difference between the two species would be helpful.
    I don't think much about this is needed, however, one more sentence may be useful, and added--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elemental fluorine (fluorine gas) is a highly toxic, corrosive oxidant, which can cause ignition of organic material (not perfluorinated materials).[109] Fluorine gas is so reactive to the sense of smell that concentrations as low as one part in 20 billions are detectable by odor." These sentences don't flow together really well, nor does the part about smell really seem appropriate under "Precautions".
    These two are the only for F2 precautions, so they're together in the same para. About the part about smell, it was discussed to be left here on the first PR (I hope I haven't mistaken). By the way, what's wrong do you find in placing it here?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just that smell/odour on its own has nothing to do with precautions, its a physical property. If it is going to stay here, maybe a mention about inhalation toxicity or something similar would help
    I don't really think smell is a physical property, since it's caused by chemical reactions. Anyway, I've added a bit, and I believe the point is now finally addressed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • These sentences don't really make much sense to me. "F gas is so reactive to the sense of smell..." might lead an unknowing reader to think that the F reacts chemically with the sense of smell (which probably isn't what is meant...!).Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      An interesting catch. (However, I don't think there's anyone that stupid) Rephrased as "gas is so reactive to smell receptors" (because here fluorine really reacts with smell receptors)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fluorine therefore usually replaces hydrogen in hydrocarbons without significant changes in molecular size." Rather than "usually", perhaps "can". I get that you are trying to say when fluorine replaces hydrogen the molecules are the same size, but "usually replaces" without any further explanation makes it sound like it just happens.
    Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cation is linked in the first section, presumably anion could be linked as well.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note that the noble gases are typically nonreactive would add clarity.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in how units are expressed: (kJ mol-1 vs. grams per liter).
    Brought to word standard, as this way it's more often, except only for degrees (°C and °F), which are never used in words--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a piped link to hide the "Category" in the See also note look a little smoother? MoS permitting, of course.
    Afraid to admit, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Have I been right to do this edit?
    That was it! Canada Hky (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 3: "For example, larger oxide, which is a weaker oxidant and is more likely to form covalent bonds, forms those only in four compounds (manganese heptoxide, technetium heptoxide, ruthenium tetroxide and osmium tetroxide), unlike fluorine, which forms covalent bonds to twelve metals; see fluoride volatility" Should this be "a larger oxide", or something else?
    Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence, "Metal penta- and higher fluorides are volatile; this unique property of fluoride is caused by its small radius" Possibly, "the unique volatility of these fluorides is caused by the small ionic radius"
    "the unique volatility of these fluorides is caused by the small ionic radius" should be succeeded by "fluoride small radius". However, I tried to figure out a better way. Is it OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fluorine is known to form compounds with all elements in which the reaction has been attempted, up to einsteinium, element 99." This seems a touch unclear. Have reactions been attempted with all elements up to 99?
    Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fluorine occurs naturally on Earth only in form of its only stable isotope, fluorine-19,[33] which makes fluorine both a monoisotopic and mononuclidic element; however, fluorine-18 has been found to occur in stars due to classical nova nucleosynthesis." There is a lot being said in this sentence, any way to break up some of the "only" and "fluorine" usages. Possibly a couple shorter sentences.
    What's wrong in the given sentence? Not like logical statements here are too long; the sentence, which is allowed to be a bit longer than a logical statement, seems to be OK. However, if disagreed, a suggestion from you could be useful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not so much that the content in the sentences is too much, just that the wording is awkward, with two "only"'s in close succession and four "fluorine"s. How about this, which does not change the meaning: "Fluorine-19 is the only stable isotope that occurs naturally on Earth, fluorine-18 has been found in stars as a result of classical nova nucleosynthesis." The part about mononuclidic and monoisotopic can be left out, as it just reiterates the previously mentioned information. Canada Hky (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Broken into two sentences; they count together three "fluorine"s and one "only". Further removing one of the "fluorine"s make the sentence kinda ugly... About your way...it could do somewhere among the text but certainly not in the beginning of a subsection--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fluorine-18 is linked twice in close succession.
    Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydrofluoric acid is not linked on its first occurrence.
    Improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who started calling those scientists "fluorine martyrs"?
    Added--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some grammar errors. A few below:
    • "From the perspective of cosmology, fluorine is relatively rare with 400 ppb in the universe because the solar temperatures needed to make it enable to fuse with hydrogen quickly to form oxygen and helium, or with helium to become neon and hydrogen."
    • "In total abundance fluorine is the thirteenth most common element in Earth crust, making up 800 ppm of the crust by mass."
    Better now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough for now. I'll be back again. Canada Hky (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • using the "language=" parameter is neater and preferred to "language icon"
    • No. The language= parameter causes the language to be lost among the citation text, while the language icon bolds it and can be placed at the front of the citation so that the readers clearly sees it, making it easier to determine how much of the article is non-English sourced. The language= parameter is not preferred, at least by the delegate who has to close the FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed to language = because I was criticised fro using the icon at FAC (: 06:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • journal names should not be abbreviated, also best to spell out WHO
    Could you please point to a guideline saying that "journal names should not be abbreviated" (I would agree that in full they are clearer, but the entire world abbreviates them in science - some are really unwieldy in full) Materialscientist (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if there is a specific guideline, but you're inconsistent, abbreviating some and not others, at least one journal is given in both styles. Spelling out is more transparent, this isn't a paper encyclopaedia so length of name is immaterial Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you justify having both styles, even for the same journal eg Inorganic Chemistry and Inorg. Chem.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russian cited text, please transliterate from Cyrillic to Roman alphabet (as you have done with the authors) or translate as Chemical properties of inorganic substances. Chemistry Who is the publisher? also Timatov ref needs transliteration
    For USSR Academy of Sciences works publisher given (which is the Academy itself). Translitaretion is always given rather than translate - as for French links--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitalisation style of article titles seems random, please aim for consistency
    Hold on. The article titles are (were) kept as they were published, and I thought we must keep that on wikipedia. Am I missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you did miss something ... see WP:ALLCAPS, we reduce to title case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How is ALLCAPS relevant here? I thought we are talking about "Capitalizing Titles in Journal Articles" and "Capitalizing titles in journal articles" issue. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it's a matter of consistency. You are not bound by the house styled of the journals, so adopt a uniform approach, title case being preferred as more natural and reading better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, my major issue is wasting time: many (if not most) journal titles are fetched by the citation bot from Crossref, which copies it from the publisher, I believe. Two minor things. (i) We have to keep typos in the titles if any (this happens), that is, the title is a sort of quote, so why force its style (allcaps aside)? (ii) Some words do change meaning when (de)capitalized, which is why forcing blind lowcase/uppercase conversion can potentially introduce errors. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • alkaline earth metals do not react violently, but nevertheless at room temperature. — still a problem, "nevertheless" should be followed by a clause telling us something else.
    Are these two better now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to have a "See Also", I rarely do in my FACs, and it shouldn't repeat links or spurious connections like caesium. However, enough has been done to garner my support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: we should also have a picture of gaseous fluorine in there (reqphoto template). [2]? After all, File:Thorium crystal.jpg was accepted. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FA oxygen doesn't, and it's OK. What's more, when I began working on the article, this was the photo in infobox, but it was later counted as speculation, or unreliable (I don't really remember), and removed. I'm not sure myself fluorine is brown :) However, I found this (see page 12) as possible gaseous photo. If it's OK, I might insert it into Chemical section, but... You've taken the images anyway, you may decide yourself (I'm just not sure I may take the best decision abot this; still, remember about oxygen)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oxygen doesn't have an image of it in gaseous form because it looks like there's nothing there, like this: . Fluorine, however, isn't colourless, so a photo is more called for there. (BTW, I don't see the fluorine in that photo. Where is it?? I think that if a description is provided with the photo, it should be reliable.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think the photo of gaseous fluorine you were referring to was this: . It was deemed unreliable and possibly faked as only specialised transparent containers can contain F (a few months ago I would've written "no transparent container", but now I know better thanks to Alchemist-hp), and that container doesn't look like those specialised ones. The blatant fake was this one: File:Fluorine imitation.jpg. It has since been deleted, but you can find it at here. Generally, I feel that a gaseous element infobox should have a photo of the element as a liquid inside it; gaseous photos or glowing photos can be placed in the lead. But that's just my opinion :-). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've switched the two images because I think it looks better this way. :-) But currently the File:Fluorine.jpg contains the entire description from Greg P himself...could someone help shorten the description to only what's really necessary?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article has been completely changed since I de-stubbed it and added a table several years ago; it now has everything an element article should have. References look good, content is great and informative w/o going into excess detail (although the lede is a tad longer than I like), layout is spot on. In short, great article! --mav (reviews needed) 16:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I naturally would. If this does not make FA, I would be dead. FREYWA 05:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Small oppose - A detailed review: 1a - in the Chemical section: "Current iridium highest oxidation state fluoride, iridium(VI) fluoride, is an example of a chemical compound with rare high oxidation state in binary fluoride." What is this? I have no idea. Everything else about prose is fine. 1c, 2c - OK. 1d, 1e - obviously pass. 2a, 2b - comfortable lead and ToC, pass. 3 - only 2 of them are copyrighted, and they have FURs. 1b, 4 - yes. FREYWA 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Support FREYWA 02:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review? Spot checks for WP:V and close paraphrasing not done? Please review self-published sourcing concern. The term "fluoride" is introduced in the lead before the distinction between flourine and flouride is explained. More review needed; independent review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative and conditional supportComments beginning a look-over now. Will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) based on the lead having the jack-boot of brilliant prose workover applied to it well - plaudits for all who gave it a workover in the past week. This support is pending (probably fairly straightforward) referencing issues to be addressed below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is a bit repetitive "fluorine is.." but I have reduced a few. Any more rationalising of the word "fluorine" would be good, but do not sacrifice meaning.

Otherwise looking on target. No deal-breakers really but would be good to address the status of that one image. I am not good on images so someone else might comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO comments:

  • Positive: I really like the subject! The article has some very nice content (the noble gas compound discussion, picture of the PET scan, etc.). Good stuff. In general, I like the tone of the article in terms of trying to explain things to non-PhDs (someone with freshman chem can get most of the discussions). [There are some rocky spots, but my point is it's generally good.] Also, I like the paragraph sizing (not super-long).
  • Concerns: Lead needs work to "shine" (paragraphs do not have central unifying themes (A with A, B with B), also the tribology discussion is over-long). Other structure concerns in sections of the article where there is duplication of content amongst sections. A few places where there is poor/flawed chemical explanation (e.g. "is a weak acid because it's anion is basic", also the discussion of the reason for the high ionization energy). Also some places where the prose is flabby (thoughts repeated within a sentence). I could murder-board it in detail (there's a bunch of little things...things like why do we say the gas is yellow-green in text, but tan-yellow in photo), but would only do so if I knew that kind of detailed review would be justified time spent.

Net/net: really want this to make FA, but would feel better about star-standards if the thing got the fluorine-steel passivation wirebrushed off.  ;)

TCO (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the lead. it doesn't really "grab" me, but alternatives aren't jumping out at me either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just do what I said. Cut the tribology stuff in length (it's cool stuff and well described in the article, but overlong for the lead.) Then make each paragraph unified (yes this is "hard", but that's why we get the big bucks...oh wait!) Rright now only the last paragraph in the lead has a nice unified subject. Make the first para about definition and physical properteis only. (move some of the other stuff further down and integrate in a chemical compounds para). Second and third para can be about compounds/chemical reactivity and then about historical isolation/industrial production ("sources of the element"). But those are separate distinct paras. (I don't care the order, but care that the paras have distinct "topics"). Right now, we have historical aspects of fluorospar being talked about in both the second and third para.
A strong structure makes things easier for the reader (just basic rules of composition). It can be a little non-trivial, because you only get 4 paras total (and often have more sections than that), but that just means we need to think about what fits with what. Obviously medical impact and precautions "go together". Similarly, I would argue that chemical reactivity and compounds go together. And then mineral sources, initial isolation, naming, and current large-scale productions can be tied into a thematic paragraph. Or maybe we decide the mineral should go with compounds. But it has to go one place or other, not both (in lead) and we should make really think hard about the best structure, because the reader benefits from that.
The lead should be a mini-essay that is really honed and strong and good to read all on its own. I think sometimes we get too wrapped up in just transferring topic sentences from the article body (usually slavishly in the order of the article) and lose sight of writing an integrated, tight lead.
P.s. Don't mean to come across as over-bearing, but that's my explanation. I think it's standard structure advice. (And I was nice to you on Lion.) And I'm not a good writer like Tony or Wehwalt. But that's my two cents...  ;) TCO (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am too tired now (late here in oz) - will have a look in the am if no-one else has had a rejig. Agree with what you've said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi back! I've rewritten the lead, so please go and check it out, comments are welcome. About the infobox photo, I don't like it, because the gas there is ... brown, but it's actually yellow-green. I'll think about removing the image.
I have another picture of fluorine around from the Periodic Table of Videos. The gaseous one is uninteresting: the liquid one seems redundant though. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, doesn't the description of F say "tan or yellow gas"?? That photo's tan, isn't it? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "tan" comes only from the picture. If no reference will be given in several days, I'll remove the image. I'll maybe add a steam of gaseous element instead--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. In fact, the description dates from 15 April 2010. (If you were wondering about the File:Fluorine.jpg there, they were referring to this, which used to have the "Fluorine.jpg" filename.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still sure so. Maybe the user saw it not in Wikipedia, and changed. Again, providing a proof it is tan would resolve the question, otherwise I may call it OR and remove--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
>>"is a weak acid because it's anion is basic", also the discussion of the reason for the high ionization energy
Do you mean these are hard to understand? If so, could you give some advise? If so not, hmmm... could you give some ideas what's wrong then?
Of course, I'd love to see a detailed review. If it's published, I'll probably start working on it on Tuesday.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing at talk (of this page) as Sandy has requested of me in the past. TCO (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the cites for Ullmann the same as Aigueperse et al? Or something different? What is Ullmann?  – Ling.Nut 06:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is the same. If you want, I may rename Ullman refs as Aigueperse.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit confusing as it stands, and cites should be given by author's name rather than editor's anyhow. Credit where credit is due, and all that.  – Ling.Nut 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a particular case that is different. The "authors" are not really co-authors in the sense of someone writing a book, but writers of sections within that overall thing. Also, it is MUCH more commonly recognized by the Ullman "brand". (Do a Google search and see.) TCO (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is good. I reviewed the article's lead, and I am now satisfied with the material presented therein. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few nits but leaning toward support:

  • "fluorine is very hard to oxidize; its first ionization energy is 1,681 kilojoules per mole, which makes a fluorine atom extremely difficult to oxidize into a monopositive cation, F+."--The wording is repetitive, difficulty to oxidize
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most frequently, the metals should be powdered, because many metals form fluorides layers that resists further oxidation."--A little "how to-ish." Maybe "the metals must be..."?
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Isotopes, can any other decay times be found for the other isotopes? If not it's no big, just thought it would make a nice addition in some spots of the last two paragraphs.
    Easily, but it's not needed. Only the stable one and the most stable unstable one (others are way too unstable anyway), and the only meta. It's OK, elements like xenon or tin or any heavier even element (Z<82) can have more, but the same length wouldn't do for fluorine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm through Characteristics and so far it's very good. I've only looked at the prose and scope (both done well), not the references. I will continue shortly. Happy editing! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, waiting!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes, I agree with you on the isotope information. Sorry I'm going so slow, real life is.....well, intruding.  :-/ NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support see my last comment at the bottom of my review. Graham Colm (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose reluctantly. There are still problems with the references. I have fixed a few pp. versus p. issues, but other problems remain. Some do not have a "p." or "pp." at all. Reference 83 for example just has, "Basting, D.; Marowsky, G. (2005). Excimer Laser Technology. Springer." Reference 77 has an odd edit link at the end. I think about an hour's more work is needed to smarten these up to FA standard. Also, do we really need access dates for journals? And please be consistent as to whether journal titles are given in full or not. There is an option in Dave Ibberri's [3] reference filling template to use the full journal title. I am also concerned about unsourced statements such as:[reply]

  • "Sodium fluoroacetate has been used as an insecticide, especially against cockroaches, and is effective as a bait-poison against mammalian pests."
  • "fluorinated pharmaceuticals (often antibiotics and antidepressants) are among the major fluorinated organics found in treated city sewage and wastewater". This does not seem to be supported by ref 116.[4]
  • "Once absorbed into blood through the skin, hydrogen fluoride reacts with blood calcium and may cause cardiac arrest."

I suggest checking for other unsupported statements. The first half of the symptoms of exposure section seems to solely sourced to ref 136, which is a primary study on male nude rats. Can we find a review article to use for this section? Graham Colm (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to address the referencing problem with the full journal title, added a ref for Sodium fluoroacetate, added hydrogen fluoride reference. --Stone (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fluorinated pharmaceuticals in sewage might need a lot more search.--Stone (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improved the remaining journal names, restructured the ref 77--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have missed a lot. Ref 79 has some odd formatting and that strange edit link is still at the end of Ref 77. There is still a mixture of references that use p. or pp. and those that do not. Some references still have abbreviated journal names, e.g. J Burn Care Res, while others are given in full. And as per WP:NONENG are there sources in English that can be used instead of the Russian and French? Graham Colm (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The odd edit link at the end is caused by the cite doi template, I do not know enough about it and encountered it only a few times, but in general it might good to have it every where or nowhere. The two French refs are the original publications of Ampere who named fluorine and the other of Moissan with the description of the first fluorine synthesis. Most element articles add the original publications of the discoverers additionally to broader refs coverying the whole history. For the Russian ones I can't speak.--Stone (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ref 77 is finally OK. Ref 79 is formatted OK - what's wrong? I spelled out two more journals, don't see others, but if I find them, I'll spell them out, too. French sources are historical, dating back to 19th century and are original documents of events of fluorine history. In my opinion, they should be kept. Russian refs are: ref 23, the first synthesis of Cu(IV) ever; ref 24, the first one ever of Ag(IV), ref 28; the only ref on Au(VII) claim, none else claimed so; Lidin in bibliography supports two statements: N2+F2 reaction is possible (it is mostly thought so not, because of hard conditions required) and that platinum group metals react with pure fluorine on 550-700 K (I have originally searched for an English source (yeah, it's English Wikipedia, I know), but found none). Don't criticize me on short journal names, I'll search again later. Consider this message as intermediate, more to be done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You fixed Ref 79 here [5]. I think the p. and pp. issues are a fault in the cite template. Could someone who understands how these work take a look? Thank you for justifying the use of the non-English sources; I felt the question needed to be asked. I think the minor problems with the references can be fixed in time. My main concerns are the unsourced statements that I have listed above and that there might be more of these.Graham Colm (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding referencing and page ranges - it is a good idea to stick to the same rule - eg. last two digits if higher are the same, thus "624-48", not "624-648". May as well do this at same time as double checking p./pp. fix. It is just a last peice of polish which I feel is needed for all these articles to look like they came out of, well, an encyclopedia :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that p./pp./- relies on what you are citing — a report, a journal (where p. and pp. are certainly not used), a book (where certainly used and so on. p. (if produced) is produced by |page parameter, while pp. is produced by |pages. I haven't taken a look yet, but it may be useful. About "624-48" vs. "624-648", I'd prefer the latter one, because more factual, more useful for robots, and a thought we're writing something serious and thus should use proper paging--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first statement was already sourced when I looked, Stone seems to have reported about it; I found no ref at the end of the another one, but I added one. Feel free to find more disputed statements. Are there any abbreviated journal names left? If so, could they be pointed; if so not, what else do you want (I may have missed something)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other unsourced statements, mainly in the History section. Here are some examples:

  • The first recorded preparation of hydrofluoric acid occurred in 1720 by an unknown English glassworker.
    No proof found, removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1771, Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele obtained impure hydrofluoric acid by heating fluorite with sulfuric acid in a glass retort, which was greatly corroded by the product; as a result, vessels made of metal were used in subsequent experiments with the substance.
    Shortened, referenced--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nearly anhydrous acid was reported in 1809
    Not very notable, removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owing to its extreme reactivity, elemental fluorine was not isolated until many years after the characterization of fluorite.
    Call it OR, but if fluorite was characterized in 1530, and fluorine isolated in 1886, the statement is right. Both mentioned are referenced. A ref doesn't seem to be needed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two most prominent uses of organofluorine compounds, Teflon (invented 1938), and hydrofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (for example Freon-12, introduced as a refrigerant in the late 1920s), are still major applications for fluorine.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most SSRI antidepressants are fluorinated organics, such as citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, and paroxetine.
    Added a ref--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fluoroquinolones are a commonly used family of broad-spectrum antibiotics.
    Added a ref--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several pharmaceuticals and organic pesticides contain fluorine.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the prose, the article is, on the whole, well written, especially for a technical subject, and the editors should be congratulated. There are one or two glitches however for example:

  • "In fact, the great oxidizing potential of fluorine lead to that fluorine, if reacts with a chemical, will only oxidize but not reduce" This not English.
Fixed by another editor.[6] Graham Colm (talk)
  • "The noble gases, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, are generally nonreactive substances. They all have fully filled electronic shells, which are extremely stable, and thus are generally non-reactive." Repetition of nonreactive and inconsistency of spelling.
I have edited this sentence, please check for accuracy. Graham Colm (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references still need consistent formatting. One of the joys and pains of writing for Wikipedia is that we don't have type-setters to fix things; we have to do ourselves. FAs should be as professionally presented as published paper sources. Or as near as we can get, given the limitations of the software. The cite templates can be useful, but their output often needs checking. I don't think the "p./pp./- relies on what you are citing", I think there are glitches with the templates used. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the nomination subject to a satisfactory outcome of the image review and the addition of references to the statements about pesticides and waste water and to the first half of the symptoms of exposure section. Graham Colm (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review:
With regards to the article's images there are some issues that could really do with being sorted out, pretty much every image could use some work.

  • Firstly the lead image in the infobox illustrates the subject just fine, its the licensing that needs to be looked at. Firstly it is claimed as fair-use as a poster, while I can see why this was done, it isn't technically a poster but is a promotional shot of a product that was sold on Ebay. Second, the blueish blur in the bottom-right hand corner of the image is actually a watermark that appears on other images from the same source which would have read "Copyright © 2008 Theodore W. Gray" before it was blurred out. Now the file description claims that the photographer has "sole and exclusive right and licence to produce, publish and further license the image" which is correct but the image is copyrighted and there is no indication that Theodore Gray has allowed use of his image. It seems to me that the watermark has been blurred to hide the copyright notice and claim use of the image under fair-use. While the image may sketchily pass as fair use as being a irreplaceable image, for a lead image of a potential FA some effort should be made to contact the photographer to see if they will release the image under a free license, ideally via Commons:OTRS. This isn't a major issue but it would certainly be better if the first image readers see of a possible FA isn't a fair-use image with a watermark across it.
  • There is a similar issue with the file Fluorine liquid.jpg which has had a copyright watermark cropped off and is also claimed fair-use as a poster, which it clearly isn't.
  • File:Fluorite crystals (rotated 90).jpg has bigger issues. This is a derivative work of a copyrighted image File:Fluorite crystals 270x444.jpg which has somehow survived on Commons since 2005. The file description of this acknowledges the copyright but is published as CC-By-SA 3.0 by the uploader User:Jurema Oliveira, who is not the author so they have no claim over the image or what license to publish it by. So this image shouldn't even be on Commons and should instead, it at all be on Wikipedia as fair-use.
Done image has been replaced. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another image that could use some clarification in its file description is File:Henri Moissan.jpg. While it is likely the image is in the public domain because of its apparent age, there is no link to a source to confirm its status.
Sorted. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what's going on with File:Fluorine cell room.jpg I'm not sure. It is again claimed as PD but while it appears as though the uploader may be a employee of the company there isn't confirmation of this and it doesn't mean they have the permission to release the photo. There is no link to a source to confirm that F2 Chemicals Ltd have released the image.
  • File:Iodine-heptafluoride-3D-balls.png seems fine but it could do with a proper file description, including the date, author and description.
Done file desc added. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The animated image is a nice inclusion in the article and is already a FP so that's all good there.
  • File:100 0783.JPG illustrates a Teflon frying pan fairly enough but I think a better example could be found or if not this image could use some clean-up, like cutting the pan out of the tiled background.
Done image was replaced with File:Teflon tape wound around threaded pipe.jpg. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*And last but not least File:Sodium-fluoroacetate-2D-skeletal.png is fine but a simple text and line image like this should really be converted to vector as an SVG.

Also done, made SVG and replaced in article. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. I changed out the crystal image and started deletion proceedings for the old image at Commons.
I looked at the F2 picture again and hope it is OK. We don't really have a good alternate and it is really good illustration of a real industrial setting. I don't see the image up on their website and the user is evidently from both his name and his ccontribution history someone who works with fluorines. I had a little concern at first that it was promotional, but actually I think it is fine...is showing industrial use. I left a note on his page, but he has been gone for a year. I think we should just take the fellow at his word (we have to for images anyhow). I don't think FOP has anything to do with chemical plants and as to whether the fellow should have gotten a release from F2, I figure that is between him and his bosses. We just care about the copyright of the photo, not competitors seeing the cell designs. No?
If there are any that you can just fix for us (description filling out, vectorizing) would appreciate it.
I'm going to be bold and replace the frying pan with a picture of Teflon tape (shows the color of the polymer better). If R8 disagrees, then I guess we need the frying pan cleaned up.
I agree we should at least ask for permission for the top image and am willing to send the email (have done this a lot). I can also try for a donation from Burdon who photographed the gas and reported on it in 1987 the Journal of Fluorine.TCO (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One point on the prose:
  • Fluorine is known to form compounds with all elements up to einsteinium, element 99,[24] as well as rutherfordium, element 104,[25] and seaborgium, element 106.[26] No attempt has been made to oxidize astatine, francium, four later actinides, dubnium and all elements above seaborgium with fluorine, due to the radioactive instability of these elements, though such oxidations are thought to be possible in theory.[27] Computational studies have suggested that helium could form a bond with fluorine,[28] and excited states containing neon—fluorine bonds have been observed in a mixture of neon and fluorine irradiated with electrons.[29] Argon forms argon fluorohydride at low temperature.[30]
  • Fluorine is not known to form compounds with helium (I won't quibble about neon here, although it isn't a compound). → ← this should be slightly reworked. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks later, I still need image clearance and a close paraphrasing check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
Physical properties
Fluorine gas liquefies at −188.12 °C (−306.62 °F),[5] comparable to oxygen and nitrogen, and solidifies at −219.62 °C (−363.32 °F).[5] — Should you just say "Fluorine liquefies ..." since it is obvious from context that this is the gas-liquid transition? The reader will assume anyway that the transition to solid refers to the freezing of the liquid unless you say otherwise.
Chemical reactivity
  • even the generally nonreactive ones, like the noble gas radon — remove the comma after ones, there are too many commas in this sentence
  • many metals form fluorides layers that resists further oxidation -> many metals form fluoride layers that resist further oxidation
  • which is notable for bonding very close to ionic in solid, unlike any nonmetals binary compound, including other hydrogen halides. -> which is notable for having bonding very close to ionic in the solid form, unlike other binary compounds of nonmetals including the other hydrogen halides
  • are thought to be possible in theory — either "are thought to be possible" or "are possible in theory" depending I presume on the sources
Occurrence
  • element in Earth crust -> element in the Earth's crust
  • is the least abundant of three -> is the least abundant of the three
Living organisms
Perhaps mention typical concentrations for fluoridation to contrast with the lethal doses mentioned below? Although that may be like opening Pandora's box.
Notes
Consistency: please end all notes or none with a full stop.
Final question
I was left wondering about the contrast between hydrogen fluoride being still partly covalent when dissolved in water yet nearly ionic as a solid. Do sources offer any further comment about this?

Overall a well-presented article. --Mirokado (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. I think we should cut the stuff about ionic in the solid unless we can find some discussion of the structure that shows a close-packed lattice. Yeah, it's a very polar bond, but it's still clearly molecular.TCO (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO review: still needs significant polishing My review is on the talk page of this archive. There is a lot of very nice work in here. But I think needs a polishing to be professional. Also in the course of polishing usually we still learn a little more about the content and then that informs our writing. Have a bunch of specific observations, but I can't catch everything. I hope that in some broad issues, we don't just fix the nitpicks, but use it to check the article as a whole for issues:

  • (positive) by and large we cover the right content in hitting things and in right level of emphasis. We've got the material.
  • Facts: Found a few small places where a ref was the wrong ref or a minor fact was incorrect. Think the whole thing needs a go over, to check that it all is sourced right. In particular, if there is old content from previous versions, not checked but just relied on. Also, there are still many facts that are unreferrenced. And we can't rely on other wiki articles to support this one, or the project elements database (they have mistakes in there, we need to check everything that is in this article and have an in article ref for it).
  • Getting there, but still needs prose polishing for cutting wordiness and for catching some English errors (use of article). Would like a prose grandmaster to CE the whole thing (just fix it as you go.)
  • I know this is laborious, but all the linking needs to be checked one by one, manually. External links should be checked that they go to the right place (I have found a couple that did not and I have not clicked all). Wikilinks should only be done when needed (not "rock", "star", etc.) and should pipe from the first usage, but not after that. Excess blue is a real turn off for reading.
  • I want to have an external academic like Christe go over the thing as well, but would like us to get it as clean as we can ourselves first.TCO (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A great work has been done to this article since the nomination, so now I suggest it meets the criteria. TGilmour (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fluorine/archive2&oldid=1261057558"