Template:Did you know nominations/Thiophosphoryl fluoride

Thiophosphoryl fluoride
Created/expanded by Graeme Bartlett (talk). Self nom at 10:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that thiophosphoryl fluoride burns with one of the coolest flames?
 * reviewed Did you know nominations/Ignacio Gómez


 * Symbol question.svg Several issues here, none of which should be impossible to overcome:
 * Stability: It is difficult to review an article that is still being changed significantly. I suggest Graeme indicates when they have a version ready for review.
 * OK I will stop expanding it. Usually I find it takes a bit over a week to fill in an article, and then it is too late for DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I often feel the same. For somewhat difficult articles I start them off as user space draft, then the 5 days DYK only count from the time you moved it to article space. --Pgallert (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hook claim: This scientific assertion was made in 1889. Unless there is a newer source for this, the hook claim should be restricted to "...one of the coolest flames known at the end of the 19th century"
 * I will look for a newer reference. In my first search I found discussion forums. The 1911 Britannica also claims this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how much changed in Chemistry in 100 years. I could just imagine that there are other substances out there that burn cooler. --Pgallert (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about alt1: ... that thiophosphoryl fluoride burns spontaneously in air with what the discoverers called "probably one of the coldest flames known"?
 * That's okay but not very sexy. The discoverers mention that one can put ones hands into the flame without getting burned, shouldn't that make an interesting hook? Like:
 * ALT2 ... that thiophosphoryl fluoride ignites spontaneously in air, but burns too cold to hurt anyone?
 * This is already suitably cited in the lead paragraph. --Pgallert (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Readability: Parts of the article (e.g. "The dipole moment is 0.640 Debye.") by far surpass even an interested reader's knowledge and vocabulary. Can a commonly understandable explanation be added to statements like these before we link it from the main page? Alternatively (but second choice), can the relevant scientific terms and units be wikilinked?
 * OK terms are linked and some explanation is included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise the article is long and young enough. There is no opportunity to have POV, and the main source has not been plagiarised. --Pgallert (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one more thing, sorry if it sounds like nagging: What is that "mystery product" the article mentions? Has that substance maybe later been described? I just cannot imagine that nobody has picked up that thread in over 100 years and produced another publication :) --Pgallert (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy with alt2. So far I have found nothing more about the mystery product.  Looking at what might be formed there are a lot of possibilities!  Perhaps we could ask a modern experimenter. Anyway the mystery product realy has nothing to do with the DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, ALT2 Symbol confirmed.svg --Pgallert (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)