Talk:Tantalum(V) ethoxide

Group 11 Reviews
Review #1

The properties and reactions sections look really good to me! The only thing I might add to the reactions section is a picture of the reaction or a picture of the mechanism. I think you should include more sections if you can find enough information to do so. A couple suggestions are history or uses.

Skuhl2 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Sarah Kuhl (skuhl2)

Review #2

I think the page needs a bold large type name at the top so the reader knows right away what they are reading about. Add some information to the production section if it's going to stay on the page. A history or harmful hazards section could interesting to any reader looking for more information on the chemical. Add pictures! Mgonne2 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Review #3

The chembox looks really good! There is a lot of useful information there in good format. But I would add a picture of the molecule in the top of it so the page is more identifiable and people know the chemical structure not just the molecule formula. The same goes for the reaction section of the page. If the structure could be added the formula would make a lot more sense and people could use it to compare to similar reactions. Also add more information to top of the page as an overview, as well as the production and properties. Maybe add some information regarding the history o the molecule too if you can find it.

Mngolden (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Review #4

Overall very good for what you have so far! The chembox is good, but again could benefit from adding a picture of the molecule and much more hazard information could be found to enhance the chembox! The Sigma Aldrich MSDS sheets contain TONS of great hazard information, so I would recommend looking at that. Otherwise, the sections that you have are looking good, so I would just suggest to add a couple more sections and it will be great. I would also suggest bolding the name of the chemical in addition to its other names at the beginning of the article.

Saposni2 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Review #5

The addition of chemical structures to the chembox would greatly enhance a person's understanding of the compound. The Properties section is really well done. The information you have so far is really good, which makes me think more information is still available. Academic journals could provide a useful source of information, which could increase the number of sections within the article. The overview section at the top of page contains information that could be in the properties section. Look up the uses of the compound in Nanotechnology. Jschlude2 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the primary references??
Why are we piling on all of these primary references? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not Chemical reviews. We have a guideline called WP:SECONDARY. I realize that people desperately want to contribute and it is difficult to find or know general information, but please be selective. Add general references (books and reviews). Most of the applications now mentioned are probably not applications, just journal articles that hype a possible uses. And to imply that these are useful is original research or WP:UNDUE--Smokefoot (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Take the patent, for example - it is refernced in about 20 other patents, which shows building work in applications. The primary literature was selected as the references already established the areas of applications and are the most highly cited papers that address those applications.  Essentially, the secondary sources sketch the picture and some detail has been added with primary sources.  The primary literature addresses other uses - like the catalysed hydrogen peroxide oxidation of some organic sulfides - but I did not include those because that would be UNDUE.  Smokefoot has made clear in the past that he dislikes my contributions, because I subscribe to the view that selective use of primary sources is both reasonable and appropriate and he apparently dislikes anything primary.  If editors objectively come to the view that material I have added is OR or unacceptable then edit and remove it.  I happen to believe that changing this article from this version before I made any edits to this version (cummulative diff) is a net improvement, but others may have a different view.  EdChem (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tantalum(V) oxide
Currently the applications section contains a lot of detail about the uses of Tantalum(V) oxide. Unless anyone objects I plan to move that data to the Tantalum(V) oxide page but also improve the links between that page and this one (as it only has a fleeting mention of its synthesis of Tantalum(V) ethoxide). Project Osprey (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The details are on the use of tantalum(V) oxide thin films made from tantalum(V) ethoxide. By all means, use the material to improve the oxide's page but the material is relevant here as well, IMO.  EdChem (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Improvements needed prior to GA
There are some infobox unreferenced items, such as melting, boiling, density and molar mass. We also need to bot to verify the identifiers. Since it is claimed to have a use, how much is made and used each year? Do the users make it themselves or buy it made elsewhere? What other chemical reactions are there other than decomposition to an oxide? Who discovered it, when and how? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)