Template:Did you know nominations/Thiophosphoryl fluoride

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thiophosphoryl fluoride

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that thiophosphoryl fluoride burns with one of the coolest flames?

Created/expanded by Graeme Bartlett (talk). Self nom at 10:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

reviewed Did you know nominations/Ignacio Gómez

• Several issues here, none of which should be impossible to overcome:
  1. 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)

• 1. 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)

  1. 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 --Pgallert (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)