Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fluorine/archive3


 * 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 Ucucha 01:20, 20 October 2011.

Fluorine

 * Nominator(s): R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I again think that it meets the criteria and this would be the final point for me for this article. The previous FAC went quite successful; older items from it have been resolved by now. All points found will be resolved in a week.R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: A few random minor points for attention (I have not read the article):- Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note 4: "In this article, metalloids are not threated separately..." and later "germanium is threated as a metal". Should this be "treated", or is it some scientific term that I don't understand?
 * Of course "treated". Thanks for notifying--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the notes, e.g. 10, contain statements that require citation.
 * Note 10 talks about things that aren't used anywhere outside this article, and only here just to make it all easier; it's like, say, note 4. Note 3, however, was given a ref.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency is required in the bibliography re publisher locations. All or none.
 * There were fewer than 10, for >200 refs, removed. If any other are left, they come from templates like Greenwood&Earnshaw, where they are placed automatically.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The formatting of the first bibliography entry looks awkward, with the editor after the date. I think the citation template can be manipulated.
 * Possibly. I'm just sure that those who created this checked first that this strange formatting is the correct one. If you disagree, say it (again), I'll try to do it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I found quite a few infelicities and downright spelling errors in the article. For example, Al is always spelled "aluminium" in an article like this. I fixed the ones I saw on a quick pass but I feel like there are probably more. I will continue to look. For now, I'd say it's not ready. --John (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ain't no native speaker, you know. Al should be spelled "aluminium," even though it's not an American spelling, per WP:ALUM. If you can, please try to fix other mistakes, or just notify; this would be appreciated.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. I will try to finish copyediting it to a level where it can be FA. --John (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Support I supported this last time round after my concerns were addressed  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - reading through. Looking more polished than last time. Notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  which is higher than any other element's except for neon's and helium's. - hmmm, ungainly. why not "which is higher than for any other element except neon and helium." ?
 * Hmmm...right. Fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (for now). Reading through the article, everything seemed ok until the subsection "Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides"; here, the prose is much weaker, and seems perhaps to have been written by a non-native English speaker? Sorry, just read the above Examples:
 * "Taking relatively low but hard-to-achieve oxidation states of metals, fluorine is the key in achieving many rare high oxidation states of the transition metals." hard to parse exactly what this means
 * As a native English speaker, you are welcome to suggest something better instead. The thing is: the highest oxidation state for any element is achieved in either an oxide or a fluoride. When the oxidation state is among the highest, such as +8 (Os, Xe, Ru), it's achieved only in an oxide. When it is quite low in the absolute sense but very high for an element (such as +4 for Hg), it's found in a fluoride. Hope this helps--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fluorine-containing complexes of copper(IV),[128] silver(IV),[129] nickel(IV),[130] iridium(VI),[131] and others that are examples of element oxidation state fluorine-containing compounds, rarely occurring in any other compounds, are known." awkward sentence construction
 * "synthesized indirectly on extreme conditions" on->in?
 * "The high oxidizing potential of fluorine has led to claim of gold(VII) existence in gold heptafluoride,[133] but current calculations show that the claimed AuF7 molecule was only AuF5·F2." led to claims? led to a claim? "Only" is superfluous
 * "It is also possible that the element 113, ununtrium, will be the first element in boron group to form a species in +5 oxidation state, the fluorine-based hexafluoroununtrate(V), UutF−6;[135] possibility of +5 oxygen-based species is not known to be calculated." I think this is missing some definite articles
 * "Even though fluorine is a generally stronger oxidizer than oxygen, creating, for example, nitrogen pentafluoride would need to squeeze five fluorine atoms attached to the small central atom, which is hard to perform, and the resulting molecule may not be stable at all; however, existence of this compound cannot be denied at all." I don't think this qualifies as good prose. Will engage in a full review later if the article is checked over for more like this. Sasata (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tried to fix these points. Please check it out now--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ucucha asked me to revisit. I'm still seeing problems with the prose, and can't cross out my oppose yet. I think the article needs a line-by-line review of the prose by a native speaker. Sorry for not offering more substantive comments on the content, but the FACs go smoother if most of the spit-and-polish work is dealt with beforehand. While I'm here nitpicking at small details, the references could use some tidying. A sample:


 * there's a mixture of title case and sentence case for journal article titles, these should be consistent throughout
 * watch out for stray periods where they don't belong (see for example current refs #28, #125)
 * be consistent with how page ranges are given (eg 441–51 vs. 2832–2838 vs. 541–4); Robinson et al 1997 doesn't even have the full page range given
 * I have come and standardised to two digit page refs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * refs #1, #35 endash for page range
 * Burden et al. 1997 (ref #24) missing the issue #
 * ref #33: "Journal Chemical Education" missing "of"
 * must be consistent on whether journal names are abbreviated or not
 * need consistency on how author names are presented: "Emeléus, Harry Julius; Sharpe, A. G." vs. "Alan Isaacs, John Daintith, Elizabeth Martin"
 * etc., etc. Sasata (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment&mdash;There are many inconsistencies and other issues with the citations: My recommendation is to format all of the citations using the 'citation' template. This will give you a reliable consistency.
 * "Bernhardt, N. A.; Bishop, H. W.; Brusie, J. P.," (extra comma)
 * Not really extra; it's followed by some U.S. agency that is also a co-author. (replaced with ;)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "J. Wolff" (order)
 * "Clark, Jim." (extra period) normal for the template.
 * "T. Brinck, J. S. Murray and P. Politzer" (order; 'and')
 * "C. Hebecker" (order)
 * "W. C. Schumb, M. A. Lynch, Jr." (order)
 * "Christe, K. O. et al." (no italics needed)
 * "Drews, T; Supeł, J; Hagenbach, A; Seppelt, K" (missing period)
 * "J. Wolff" (order)
 * "G. Gundersen, K. Hedberg, J. L.Huston" (order, spacing)
 * "Rentmeister A, Arnold FH, Fasan R" (periods, spacing)
 * "Pharma Chem. 2005. pp. 1–4." (spell out journal; date in parens.)
 * This is not a journal article, and the citation is done via cite web, which for some reason doesn't parenthesize the year.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Banks, Ronald Eric; Sharp, D. W. A; Tatlow, J. C" (missing period)
 * "Gosselin, R. E.; Smith, R.P.; Hodge, H.C." (spacing)
 * "Reddy DR" (spacing, periods)
 * From above, every one is done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a proper citation: http://pharmacypractice.netfirms.com/kinetics/22/index.htm
 * Replaced--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing a doi:
 * "Electron spectrometry at the μeV level and the electron affinities of Si and F": 10.1088/0953-4075/34/9/101
 * "Kinetics and mechanism of ruthenium tetroxide catalysed oxidation of cyclic alcohols by bromate in a base": 10.1007/BF01129466
 * Thank you. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Missing a PMID:
 * "Perchlorate and the thyroid gland."
 * Thank you--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Structural Inorganic Chemistry": Publisher?
 * Has one now; I wasn't the one to add--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See: Wells5th. RJH (talk)
 * Missing a title:
 * "Dementyev, A. I.; Kuznetsov, M. L.; Kiselev, Y. M. (1997). Zhurnal Neorganicheskoy Khimiyi (42): 1167."
 * "Rother, P.; Wagner, F.; Zahn, U. (1969). Radiochimica Acta (11): 203."
 * "Byrns, A. C.; Rollefson, G. K. (1934). Journal of the American Chemical Society 56 (5): 1250–1251. doi:10.1021/ja01320a506."
 * Added them all.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Autumn, Kellar (2006). Properties, Principles, and Parameters of the Gecko Adhesive System. pp. 225–256. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31049-5_12." Journal name?
 * Added--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This doi is incorrect: "doi:10.1086/512369?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dncbi.nlm.nih.gov."
 * Replaced with the correct one--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I started trying to work backwards up through the text, but in some areas it seems to need editing for clarity. Some examples: Sorry, but I can't support at this time. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...have no known compounds that do not decay regardless conditions..." makes no sense.
 * "...rodenticides containing sodium fluoroacetate ("Compound 1080") containing organofluorine..." Huh? This needs some clarification.
 * "It is important in separation technique in intra-site chronological analysis and inter-site comparisons" is unclear in several respects.
 * Does this mean "It is important as a separation technique for intra-site chronological analysis and inter-site comparisons"?
 * Seems so.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...allowing for longer times between dosing and application." Needs to explain the difference between dosing and application. Perhaps it was intended to say 'activation'?
 * "Although it is not one of basic magnetic resonance spectrometers used in science and medicine, fluorine-19..." Fluorine-19 is a magnetic resonance spectrometer?
 * "In the electrolysis of the metal and its purification, it acts to lower the melting point of aluminium oxide and acts like a powerful flux for glass." How did glass enter into this? It seems to be changing the subject of the sentence.
 * "The range of organofluorine compounds is thus diverse, in part because the area is driven by commercial value of such compounds in materials science and pharmaceutical chemistry." Perhaps it was intended to say 'useful organoflourine compounds'? Or perhaps 'known organofluorine compounds'? Otherwise this doesn't seem quite right.
 * The mentioned examples seem to be better now (lines above are used to make me see clearer which points I didn't even start to address)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I seem to have addressed all these issues.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

More comments: Feel free to suggest something instead, as I don't know what would be better than this: the text means fluorine allows to reach some oxidation states that are not extremely high numbers but are very hard to synthesize (+2 for Kr, +4 for Hg, so on) as compared to the highest states (+8 for Ru/Os/Xe, +7 for Mn/Tc, so on) that are impossible for fluorine.
 * "serum albumin": unexplained jargon
 * "...a fraction of which...", "...a variety of...", "...is occasionally used...": vague
 * "...but the reaction between pure sulfur and pure fluorine gas is most commonly used in industry": is this meant to say "the most commonly used"? "more commonly used"?
 * There's a number of sentences that employ "used" twice, which makes it stand out. Please substitute a synonym, or reword.
 * "The largest use for elemental fluorine..."
 * "The second largest use for fluorine gas is..."
 * "Elemental fluorine is used for production..."
 * "The volatility of these compounds...": induced & induce
 * Don't get this one; what's wrong?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeated use of key word 'induce' makes it stand out, at least for me. My understanding is that repetition is okay for emphasis, but it's normally discouraged. There's plenty of synonyms you could use.
 * Got it. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The general trend is fluorination allows to achieve relatively low but hardly achievable for an element compounds..." Huh?
 * "The general trend is fluorination allows to achieve relatively low but hardly achievable oxidation states": Sorry but I'm still not quite groking this. What is it trying to say?
 * Okay, maybe part of the issue I'm having here is that "allows" is a verb, but the target is unclear. I'm left uncertain "what" flourine allows to achieve relatively low oxidation states. Would it be "reagents"? How about: "The general trend is [for] floridation to allow [reagents to] achieve relatively low [oxidation states, such as +2 for Kr or +4 for Hg. However, these low states are very hard to synthesize, while the highest states, such as +8 for Ru/Os/Xe or +7 for Mn/Tc, are impossible to achieve with flourine.]" Did I interpret what it is saying correctly? RJH (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ack, the "Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides" section is a mess. Sorry, but I think this article needs more work before it is FA ready. RJH (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...but krypton difluoride is well-known": Never heard of it.
 * "...while ruthenium tetroxide is well-known": Never heard of it.
 * "With [the] exceptions of the +7 and +8 oxidation states...":
 * "known in [the] hexafluoroaurate..."
 * "and if possible, [whether it is] stable or not"
 * "if form of tetroxoaurlyl(IX) ion" huh?
 * "in [the] form of [the] tetroxoaurlyl(IX) ion"?
 * My bad.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...a later work denies..." later than what?
 * All done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, could you give some advice? (About the subsection, I added level 5 subsections, but am sure you (and others) will not consider this enough)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's few more observations: Regards, RJH (talk)
 * There's a few places that seem to be missing articles (&c.), but it's difficult to tell. For example: "...and only in [the] form of a fluoride...", "...in [the] form of tetroxoaurlyl...", "...but not [as] a fluorine-based..."?
 * The listed have been fixed, and a few more, too.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "if possible and synthesized", "these species have been denied since": what is this saying? As of when?
 * Better now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "With the exception of countries with planned economics, about 17,000 tonnes of fluorine are produced per year by 11 companies in G7 countries." Why start with the seemingly irrelevant exception here? Is this intended to list the total world-wide production?
 * Good one. The problem is it's almost impossibly to find F2 production numbers. The only source I found clearly states: "With the exception of of countries with planned economics." Don't know why, maybe they keep it in secret, or whatever. Just no data around.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. However my other concern is that the first part of the sentence doesn't seem to be connected with the second. It is in need of clarification. RJH (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...this is a well-known process for [the alkali metals] sodium and potassium": well-known by chemists, perhaps?
 * Yep. I haven't added "the alkali metals," but gave links to the metals.
 * "...the only well-known analogous nonmetal compound": ditto.
 * Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "However, only four atoms of ununoctium have been synthesized, and its chemical properties have not been examined yet.": No cite for this assertion. It is also time sensitive.
 * Better now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Even though fluorine is a generally stronger oxidizer than oxygen, creating,. for example, nitrogen pentafluoride would need to squeeze five fluorine atoms attached to the central atom." First, this sentence is an awkward read; it almost seems to be two different sentences conglomerated into one. Second, it is not made clear what the comparison with oxygen has to do with nitrogen pentaflouride.
 * Better now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Cubic.svg is sourced to a deleted page
 * If you're talking about the redlink on the image page, that's a typo; the image can be traced to File:Cubic crystal shape.png


 * File:Henri_Moissan.jpg: who was the photographer, and what was his/her date of death?
 * Published before 1923, so fine for the U.S. Appears to have been a photograph by an organization in Sweden, published no later than 1908, actual photographer seems anonymous, so fine in Sweden too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Fluorocarbon-montage.png: what program was used to create this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Benjah-bmm27/MakingMolecules gives a description on how the file was created by Benjah-bmm27.--Stone (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.