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

Advertisement?
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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Cleanup - Incomprehensible
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)

External links modified (January 2018)
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.

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

Cleanup - Incomprehensible part 2
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)