Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Fluorine/archive2

TCO's reviewer section

(continuing chat from opposite page)

Cool, Russian chess-master (all the chemists from Russia are geniuses, I find...that or they just get a lot more math/physics training than we capitalists...). Thanks for playing along with FAC. The standard can be pretty exacting and I give you some major respect for doing this as a non-native speaker! I will get a long one done...am on travel now, so don't have references, but later in the week, I can look stuff up in Greenwood&Earnshaw or Cotton&Wilkinson, as well. (I will do the review on the talk page as Sandy gets annoyed with my longwindedness. I can copyedit or help as well, but probably better if you keep control and I just write a long review, as it is "your baby".  ;))

Oh please! By the way, we've had capitalism since 1991... Even through you're partially right, the current education system in Russia comes from Soviet Union times. Anyway, thanks! It's pleasant to read such things... Through, copyedit might be useful, my literature English is not that good...but it doesn't mean it's necessary, just pointing could do, too :)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead has better structure, now, thanks.

Never mind :)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the weak acid, explaining that it is a weak acid because the anion is basic, is like saying "negative 5 is negative because it is less than zero". True...but not giving any additional info. All negative numbers are less than zero. All weak acids have weak base anions! This is the nature of the acid-base chemical equilibrium! Ways to upgrade (either (1) give a more microspoic explanation of the phenomenon...or just (2)cut the rationale and say it is a weak acid. The other thing that makes me pause is I THINK there is a bit of unstated bewonderment that it is not a stronger acid (after all, the bond has ionic character and all) and also the other haloacids are all strong acids. And I remember being puzzled in basic chem why it was not stronger. But this is not really spelled out, just alluded to, so a non-chemist reader might wonder at the unstated context. The part about the HF being very strong in other solvents is interesting as well and "value add" content. I guess if we had some more microscopic explanation of why the differences of the behavior in the different solvents might cap this off better. But not "is a weak acid because its anion is a base"  ;)

It's not that obvious, and will take a quite long discussion to explain it properly. Maybe it's better just to cut it? I'd need a subsection for that, but I'm afraid that could break the structure and pointedness.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just cut it. No explanation in the article per above, even through comments are still welcome--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there might be a way to save it and it may be pretty encyclopedic, but let me see when I get there. Bolding as a reminder to me.

On the ionization energy discussion, I would not give the rationale that because it has a high electronegativity, it has a high ionization energy. After all, Ne has an even higher ionization energy, yet it has no electronegativity. The explanation I remember from freshman chem had more to do with the poor sheilding of the p electrons, thus giving higher effective nuclear charge seen by the outer electrons. (I think we are close, but it is enough off, that my HS teacher would not be happy.)

Yeah, you're right, but... Does the article? I've reread the Physical section, but I didn't find there anything like so. What's confusing you?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There was also another place where we said "because it has this amu, it has this density". NO! There may be some very general tendancy of heavier elements to have higher density, but there are all kinds of counterexamples where a higher amu can have lower density and the like. I just don't think we should connect these two properties in this place. Separate them. Maybe discuss the amu in the context of some other aspect of physical properties (basic atomic structure) or with the stable isotope discussion (after all, it is the mono-isotope phenomeon which gives rise to the near integer atomic weight).

I can myself give you counterexamples: aluminum/scandium and cesium/francium. For these elements, it's true. That's true for all solid and liquid elements. Gases are special: 1 mole of every gas takes the same volume on same conditions. For standard conditions, it's 22.4 liters (I have no idea how much it is in American units, sorry) — at least that's what I learned from school — therefore, density of gases relies only on molecule mass. See the densities of, say, carbon dioxide, helium, and methane. The densities are of ratio 44:4:18, just like their molecular masses. BTW, in 8th grade I was allowed not to give off my schoolbooks, so I may scan it to prove myself. But if we were talking about carbon or titanium, you'd be right.

Good point on the gas laws. And then the amu was for the molecule, not the atom. OK, I get it now.  ;) TCO (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

TCO long review

Lead

Move the references for the last para to body text (this is the only para of the lead where we are doing inline referencing) and the content is a summary of text in body.

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Just to inform: this infobox is used on 125 articles, so I will mostly reply as for them all in general.

Periodic table picture

: I see this is the format being used on other elements, but have some crits.

• hard to see F. I don't see the outline of the subject element (maybe just color it black)?

  What browser are you using? On my Opera border it's seen. And IE, Firefox and Google Chrome, too. Coloring black would be ... not beautiful.

• Whole thing just looks bad (crude drawing). For example, the periodic table in the Project Element userbox is more attractive.

  It's hard to draw it better, being so small... And on all my browsers it seems OK. Especially Chrome and Firefox, where cells are separate, just as planned.

• Can't tell what some of the info/icons are, they are so small.

  They're atom model and structure. Little room.

(Issues resolved, striking. Sometimes it looks OK, other times it has this issue of being all washed out and the outline of Fl not discernable, just see a couple lines not the whole square. I also think it would be better graphically to have the rare earths and actinides in the "below" configuration since width is limited. But I really don't care and I realize this is the standard across articles. Just noting a thought!)TCO (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Element picture

• Change the picture label to say "a quartz tube containing F2". Discussing the color gets us in trouble since the reader see yellow-green in text, but we call it yellow-tan in photo. So at least don't discuss the color in label.

  OK! A nice suggestion

• (this is very minor, just noting reservation) Not crazy about the orientation of that photo. We really emphasize the bottom of that tube, rather than the element. Not sure why not just shot against a backround, or perhaps with an air-filled or vacuum-filled tube for comparison.
  • After reading the Burdon article, I feel better about the orientation (can't see the gas cross-wise).TCO (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• (again minor, just noting reservation). There were a few things I didn't like about using that photo. It may in fact be the only good photo of F2 in a transparent container, but I wonder. If in fact that is the case, seems like this would be publishable importance. Just not so crazy about the hobbyist claims of distinction (which end up continued in the file description). They seem like good guys, but... Also, it's non-free...and the only justification for that is if we really buy this "this is the only photo" claim of the hobbyists. Plus there were some things in the justification/description that seemed off to me. First that tube may be quartz (standard material for doing work), but I doubt it is "single crystal" quartz. Also, they talk about national security and danger as issues with snapping a picture (second fine, but first?) Plus, I just wonder if you can get a photo anyway, by just coating a glass material with a thin layer of Teflon or DWR (optically transparent) or even just using glass and being quick to take the picture, in the fume hood. That said, a heated quartz tube is really a pretty normal material to work with. You need a hydrogen torch to melt the end (methane flame not warm enough), but it's honestly normal material for people doing air-sensitive solid state chemistry research.
  • Still think we need a donation (and definitely not two non-free images).TCO (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Information

• Should each row have a reference? There are a couple that have refs now, but most not. If it is all from same handbook, with a few exceptons, maybe we can handle this by an explanatory note or having the ref at end. Or is the rational that refs are in body text? That said, I'm used to infoboxes bristling with citations.

  I added some. But actually, the figures come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Chemical elements data references.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  We need to transfer the citations into this article. If the information is already referenced in the text of our article that is fine though. But we can't rely rely on other Wiki articles. We have to take responsibility in this article for all the information being referenced to RSes. (And if those articles lack citations, we need to find them. But I have a CRC at home.) This is not me being a super-stickler, is a pretty basic FA/FL requirement. I can help with the grunt work, if you want!

  All figures are referenced now. Is it OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  Big upgrade, but I think there are still gaps. Like vapor pressures. Even obvious stuff like the atomic configuration and the like. I can get a lot of it referenced to Greenwood and Earnshaw Chemistry of the Elements (which I own). Actually I got sort of distracted and am now reading the entire chapter on the halides in that book. And it is 100 pages long.  :( Already seeing some stuff to upgrade in the applications and compounds (no radical changes, just a couple more factoids I think are "worthy"). TCO (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  A little help on what you call "gaps" would be useful :) Especially vapor pressures. I've taken a look on my Ullman's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, and added some more, but it gives vapor pressures not on the points that are used in the infobox.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• (General question): Why is the infobox contents off in template land instead of in article? Is this the norm or how it was in Painted turtle where the stuff was in article? The refs seem to be working across this. I just am confused as am used to seeing the contents in edit mode, not needing to go to another page. Comments?

  That was decided within the WikiProject I don't know when, but it certainly was. One of the reasons I remember is the high visibility rate of oxygen and possible (or past) instability of its infobox--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• (General comment and NOT something I want to hold this article up for...just talking): Wonder if this whole thing would look cleaner if we had a reference column, like in the table in state reptile. Just a thought. But might drive better practices in verifiability for all the element articles.

  Maybe, but I'm not in favor of it, a little losing in looks and, in fact, the current system works OK--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  Again, I would never hold the article up over this. But I disagree. I think there is a practice of using information that is not referenced. I little nudge of a reminder would cause the project to up its game. I have been doing a lot of looking at handbooks lately and they generally do a better job of sourcing than we do (and really I would trust them MORE if they didn't list all the refs as they are professional publications).

• The CRC lists about 20 vapor pressures for F versus temperature, but they go by temperature, not by VP (and gaps pretty big, would not feel good with interpolating). Probably we need to find a graph and read off the points, if you need those exact ones. I can go try to get it...but we need to have it!
• I'm OK with not reffing the more obvious non-numeric things like "halogen", just lets make sure it's reffed in article.
• I'm not sure what the electron orbital image does for us. Never seen that before. Seems kinda confusing to me. We label the nucleus as "F". Group the 2s and 2p orbitals together (makes sense in a way, but not explained). Also don't label and explain the 1s versus the valence electrons. then they are on these rings. Just not sure how that will work expecially for heavier elements with the aufbau of electrons and all. Is that just a practice of commercial periodic tables? Curious...
• Would remove the hyperlink on "b.p." under density and go ahead and spell it out. It spills to second line anyway, so may as well (on my monitor). And better to just wikilink the property of interest (and boiling point itself is wikilinked, a couple down).
• Probably should have a reference in box for the numeric value of covalent radius.
• And ref non-magnetic...I know we don't discuss that in article. Also is it "diamagnetic"? (nonmagnetic is a confusing term)
• I'm concerned about the crystal structure really being "cubic". I can't get that reference (paywall). Other stuff I googled said it was monoclinic (but I'm reading an abstract). G&E say it is "layered" which doesn't make sense with cubic. Also there are two forms alpha and beta (so it really DOES matter) to list the temperature. There is a solid phase transition under atmospheric pressure, based on temperature.
  • Actually this 75 paper says the beta is cubic and the alpha is monoclinic (our 20K would still be wrong, and probably better to list it as monoclinic, that is most of the range and how handled at liquid helium). There is an 87 paper that is paywalled. It's on high pressure work, but assume it would disuss atmospheric as well. Someone actually in academia would have really good access to structural databases and the like. I am limited doing this stuff via google.

    Hmmm...what about keeping the cubic one? Only because it's closer to the room temperature. It just makes most sense. We could call iron a gas on the ground its gaseous range is wider than solid and liquid ones--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    We can, although I feel a little this is the lazy way out (as the element has the monoclinic structure for about a 50 degree range and the cubic for only a 10 degree range (and I bet if you are really handling the stuff, you do so with liquid He...that is the way people normally work (in steps of temp, based on cooling technlogy)...but no biggie. In any case, we need to change the listed temperature--20K cubic is just wrong. This is another place where a refs column would help as we could add a note (and not have the note below). But...really...I am fine with listing cubic as long as we put the proper temperature in. Also, since we're going to add a sentence in the article text mentioning both structures, that will help also!  ;) TCO (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• We need to reference the decay properties as well. This is one, where a Ref. column to the right would really be nice...

  Pretty may be, but it's hard to construct. Check yourself how it works, it's not just a table. And isotope properties seem to be discussed in the main body, but I'll add something in the isotope name--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  The issue is that we are listing numbers for how much electron capture versus how much positron emission...and that is not even in the article text. So right now, we have a definitive number, but no reference for it.TCO (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why are we linking units? (like Kelvin or Kj/mol)? Prefer not to. They are pretty standard units and besides user clicking on melting point or heat of vaporization (which have links) will come to discussion of temperature scales. Also, it's inconsistent. We wikilink some units but not others. Even ones like Kelvin or Kj/mol are inconsistently linked by us in table. (I would just delink all the units, but if we keep them be consistent).

  Those units which would be red if linked are not linked. For other ones, are they disturbing? For now, I've made all units that have articles (however, I might've missed something and some units have articles) linked once, at their first appearance.

• Get rid of the parentheses (F2) for the heats and such...it's always for the most common allotrope (and we only have one), plus we are inconsistent using it in some places and not others.

  Reasonable, removed.

• Specific heat capacity: Indicate if Cp or Cv.

  Added both--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Crystal structure: indicate the conditions (i.e 1 ATM but below melting point?)

  Adding any other words would lead in absence of one of the pictures... I'll try to figure something soon--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  I am talking about the row far down (not the picture in the periodic table). An explanatory note (connecting below) would be fine. It is just a little jarring to see the crystal structure of a gas. I think I know what it means (the structure of the "ice"). It's really no big science point...just for convenience of the reader.

  I understand :) But the picture relies on the |crystal structure= parameter. If it is changed, the picture disappears. See now - that's the best I can currently come up with.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Leave it.TCO (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• stable with 10 neutrons -> stable (why discuss number of neutrons, makes it sound like some F-19 might not have 10 neutrons, besides we don't discuss neutrons in F-18).

  Discussion might be useful — for example here, we see that Z<A-Z, fluorine is the first element in periodic table not to have an isotope with Z=A-Z. For heavier element this is even more useful. For unstable isotopes, this may be not so necessary, they aren't stable and just have no room for that.

  Discussion of the isotope Z numbers and all the odd-even rigamorole would be great within the isotopes section (or perhaps the article on Fl isotopes). I just don't see a reason for that comment within table. Especially as the insight you gave is not clear and also there is the confusion why we explain number of neutrons for one and not the other.TCO (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Discussion - yes, but a simple notation would be OK. Empty place is filled with neutron number. There's no place to add N to unstable ones, and stable are of special interest. If you think it's unfair - every isotope with Z>40 is theoretically unstable, but no decay properties are given anyway. I am strongly sure the number should be kept.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Disagree (for stylistic reasons, not science), but since you feel strongly, striking. It is a very minor thing.TCO (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• wikilinks for positron emission and electon capture should pipe from the symbol only, not from symbol and percent occurance.

  OK!

• New one. One standard amu, I don't think we should be linking to the list of atomic masses and the order of magnitudes. It is just strange how they are linked from the number and the percent uncertainty anyway. You have the concept itself linked on the left.TCO (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Say, van der Waals radius (147 pm) is linked to a page that redirects to 100 picometres. There's no such an article for mass, so the one that takes them all together is linked. However, I don't really care and you still disagree, I'll remove the links.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Cut it in all three places like this. It is confusing. What you are literally linking is the number 147 and that just makes no sense. You have the property linked to the right. Linking 10pms is just cruft and confusion...there was a time when all the dates were linked also! But no more.;)TCO (talk)

  As promised, here you go--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Physical

• I like the paragraph size here and the effort to give intuitive explanations to the phenomena.

• That said, the first and third paras bug me. Seems like the explanation is a little "off" (confusing the tendancy to want to add an electron with the tendancy to take a lot of energy to remove one).

• Also electron affinity seems to be misused (our article says it is related to adding an electron to a neutral atom, but our discussion here is about ionization to positive cations).

• I also think the first sentence is too multi-clause (keep it more simple...will help given the technical complexity).

• Then there is a comment about adding an electron changing the attraction of protons to electrons that is off (the Coulombic attraction is the same, it is the electron-electron repulsion (or you can think of it as partial shielding of the protons) that causes the size to grow. And then the point to make about the isoelectronic comparison to Neon is that Neon DOES have more protons. Whole thing just seems close (want some explanation of this sort), but a little muddled right now. Maybe because we are comparing radius sizes of both ions, neutral atom, and Neon. Like here, "This leads to a fluoride ion having a larger electron cloud radius than that of a fluorine atom, even through a neon atom, isoelectronic with fluoride ion, has a smaller radius than a fluorine atom." Yes, F- is isoelectronic with Ne and larger than neon, but the reason is Ne having more protons...and this is NOT what causes F- to be bigger than F. (Every X- will be bigger than X.)

• Maybe there is a structure solution here that will help us (more A with A and B with B). First para on atomic structure (add a little more content here, number of protons, orbitals of the electrons). Second para on ionization energies (be pretty clear about the differences of positive and negative ionization). Third paragraph on radii. Fourth paragraph on the properties of F2 allotrope (would cut the one comment about corrosiveness, let's keep it to physical properties). We would still have a natural flow here and can discuss microscopic rationales, but would reduce the muddle.

  I've taken a short look on the section. Please check how it suits now your points.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Big upgrade. Let me add a couple tweaks and we are done.TCO (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion of covalent radius of fluorine needs work (will do). Have 4 different places where we tell the reader to see the covalent radius of flourine (not an appropriate reference to cite a wiki article either). Want to tighten the prose a little as well. Also, I'm not sure that it is true the F and H have similar radii (my quick look showed H much smaller).TCO (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I plan to add a little more (won't take much room). the alpha beta structure solid structure stuff. The smell.

Chemical

*(no action required) I realize this is probably a Project Element thing and not worth fighting, but I'm not crazy about putting chemical reactivity so separate from chemical compounds. It seems like the two could be combined. If not combined, at least having them back to back would be helpful. I think we end up with repetition and with sort of an odd dynamic of starting to learn something, stopping...then coming back to it. (For instance interposing isotopes, an aspect of nuclear structure, in between "chemical reactivity" and the "compounds".) Not asking for this to be changed for one case, but editorializing to preserve the thought. However, even if we don't change the Project org, we should be very clear about how to make it "work". Think about what belongs in chemical properties versus in compounds, and decide how to make that "cut".

• See also compounds -> move to compounds section.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• The reference for the first two sentences seems bad (commercial website of a water treatment company listing basic chemical element descriptions.) Would be better to reference a textbook or handbook or such. We should do a sweep of the whole article and see if there are any other weak references like "Lenntech". Also the thoughts in the first and second sentence seem very different, so should have different citations.

  OK, replaced--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• cut "the most reactive" as a cause of it being an oxidant (too much of a truism, like is reactive therefore is reactive). The part about electronegative is fine, although a good microscopic rationale might also discuss the size of the atoms and ions, or especially the low strength of the F2 bond (very easily disassociated).

  That's all already in Physical, so a repetition won't be good--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Some flabby prose (repetition of "binary" when it is already discussed as "MF", giving an example after a topic sentence and then coming back within the same sentence and saying "so that is an example"). I can work to clean this up. Just FYI.

  If anything's left, then yes please--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Structure seems unclear to me (what each para is on and why one after the other). Think this is a remnant of iterative wiki-editing. For instance we discuss reactions with noble gases in both the first and last paras. Should reactions with the alkalis come after transition metal high oxidation (usually one thinks of the former as simpler). There are some threads of reason for why B after A (like discussing high oxidation states after "good oxidizing agent", or like non-observed but predicted reactions with transuranics, before discussion of theoretical HeF compound) but still I think we need to do more to make a simple, considered structure. Not sure what right now, but it needs work. One simple one, would be to separate the rare gas stuff from the transuranic stuff by a para break (they are pretty different...I think you have an easier time structuring with more paras...and don't let any Wiki busibodies tell you there is anything wrong with a 2 sentence paragraph if the thought is distinct! A "short" para is a single sentence. Two sentences is perfectly respectable!)

  Hmmm...suggestions? I'm not good at structuring paragraphs--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Think we should mention powdering of the metals to get most of these spectactular reactions. Especially since this is a section on "chemical reactivity" rather than "compounds", important for the reader to realize that flourine doesn't just burn through any metal (lots of them form passivating layers). CoftheE has a good section on this. Even for Fe, you not only have to grind it to powder but to a very fine, seived powder, to get the spectacular direct reaction.

  Good one. Added--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the science article (ref 19) concerning radon reactions, but the abstract discusses aqueus reaction (not a jet of F2 and Rn).

  I copied it from article radon fluoride, where it claims something similar. I thinks the referencing may be OK; for example, when experimental chemistry of transactinides is discussed, usually they discuss how each atom was received. Maybe there's a brief mention how they did receive RnF2 as well (not atoms, but the reaction). t_1/2(²²²Rn)=3.8 d only, it's not like calcium compounds, so very possible the source discusses the claimed content

  If we want to keep it (we should have proved the reference for it, and read the aqueous ref to prove it really applies). I can see this changing anyway, though just as a matter of structure/org, though.TCO (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  I found a better ref, which does have the claimed content.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  This ref is still wrong. That reference (when I click the link) does not tell me that radon burns in fluorine. (Plus I still think it is a distraction as people think of it for its radioactive gas properties more than for its noble gas nature. Just cut it...we cover noble gas comounds later fine.)TCO (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also that whole sentence seems confused (why stick Rn into a general discussion of reactions with water, metals, etc.?) And we shouldn't be wikilinking substance, or writing in that vague generalization anyhow! Plus the reference only supports the Rn, not the rest of the sentence.

  To underline how F2 is reactive. Common reactions and even a relatively surprising one - that's why. You may reword as you wish, however.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to get CoftheE into the bibliography. There is a lot of good stuff in there on industrial aspects, I have it at home, we can use it to reference "trivial" aspects of the chemistry (textbook type stuff).

  That would be neat, to be done as the refs appear--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the bibliography references have some sort of link from citation to bibliography? (not pushing a format, but this is how Painted turtle worked) and seems more convenient. I can get a citation guy to help here...

  To my memory, it is not required. However, if "get" means here "introduce", it would be sweet--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Think some content like solubility of the metal halides belongs in "Compounds". (discussing the property of a compound here.)

  I was first going to argue, but you're right. Removed from there, introduce to Compounds later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Radon is repeated twice in the first para...someone had a hardon for radon!  ;)

  Come on! :) But reduced the number to 1--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like reactivity with other halides should be included. Especially in the context of an oxidizing agent (for instance high oxidation states of iodine).

  Hmmm...actually yes, but I don't want to make the subsection that long--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. Let's keep the sub short. I think down in compounds makes more sense anyway. For instance ties in with the picture. And is an easier section to skip over (deeper down in article).

• Some places where the indefinite article is missing (no worries, my Russian is very poor)!

  Such as?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  End of para four, I would say "in the solid", not "in solid". This stuff is pretty subtle idiomatically and I can work on proofing it.TCO (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The doi for the HF ref being ionic is pointing to a totally different article (I don't really know dois btw, so can't help). Also, I would like to check and understand this issue of the HF actually being "close to ionic" in the solid. Is it really, or is it more like the hydrogen bonding in ice?

  Fixed doi. The thing is a significant H⁺F^- character (but not dominant as the bond is still covalent anyway)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  I still get the wrong doi paper: Hartree-Fock HF not our HF. In any case will cut as it is just a chevronic arrangement of dipole molecules, not that strange. Bond lengths are very different in and out of molecule. not a lattice.TCO (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Isotopes

• (no action) I editted a bit for logic/structure.

  Thanks! I reworded a bit, but that was still useful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• The comment about F-19 via fusion in stars seems unclear. I would just change it to has been observed in stars (and keep the discussion of generation to the next section on Ocurrence). But then when I look at that reference for that sentence it does not seem like it is really about either solar spectroscopy or generation, but is discussion of experiments on Earth.

  Yes. Someone removed it anyway (thanks if you)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• The reference I found on the web had a different half-length for the nuclear isomer. [1]

  Data may differ from different sources, it's OK. Searching for sources for the infobox proved it to me, some properties from Ullman's differ from data from other sources--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Occurrence

1. Concerned that the discussion of origination in stars sounds too technical.

Hmmmm...does it? Where? What can be done?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Concerned (especially after reading the Sky Telescope article) that the discussion does not adequately acknolwedge level of uncerntainty on formation.

It's written very general anyway. Isn't it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

3. Wonder if there is new (significant, channging the story) research post Sky n Telescope (which was from 2004).

4. I'm not quite clear, but is it monotomic F that was detected or elemental F2? See here for pdf of the 1981 reference: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1981ApJ...247L..39S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Not sure but I think it's F^•, because they also found F I (F⁺), which should be monatomic. Remember F—F bond in F₂ is weak.

5. The mineral discussion reads better in CoftheE. Clarifies prevalence of the minerals, of F in the minerals, and whether mineral used directly or as a source of F. (We sorta have the same info, but just not as strongly structured.) Am inclined to rewrite our stuff, my only concern is I do not have access to that 2008 paper, which is probably superior to Greenwood in detail and being more recent.

6. "These two" (which two?)

Fixed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

7. Are MINERALS actually "mined" from the waters? Or are these waters associated with formation of the minerals

Right. Fixed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

8. Also meteoric and magmatic water are somewhat obscure terms (wikilink at least). If possible simpler term of ground water versus meteoric water (especially confusing as we talked earlier about space and stuff...I actually wondered if this was meteors!)

9. Not clear what the 1935 reference is being used for and wonder if that is a bit of a low quality (it is an RS, but seems like there are better general articles...it is all about one particular outcropping in the US.)

History

1. Peter Meiers reference: What is the proof he is a good RS and couldn't we use something more established?

Check out the main FAC page, it has already been pointed there. You may find useful my replies about it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

One of those articles you referenced was an "editorial". I did a quick google scholar search on the fellow's full name and only came up with a couple papers. He seems to be a medical researcher. I don't think he's really an authority on history of fluorine. (Also he seems a little associated with the fluoridation of water debates.) Chemistry of the Elements (page 790) can be used to back up the Agricola 1530 (they have 1529) comment. Once we get that reference anchored, I can start going to town.TCO (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Will clean up the first para. Just want it a little tighter, eliminate "showy" link not needed.

3. Whole article has a lot of repeated linking. For instance here, fluorite was just wikilinked a few lines up, before a repeat. Blue slows the reader down from reading THIS article. Most editors prefer only wikilinking the first use of a term. I probably want to go through the whole article at the end, check all the links for repetition, correct piping, etc. (Mike Christie is good at this.)

4. footnote 47 (fluorspar terminology) is inapppropriate. Just citing a single paper where they used the term is not the way to support the "term is still used" claim. Will find Cotton or Greenwood cite.TCO (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

5. I think we should be careful to differentiate historic development from current usage (after all we have a section for each). Not a huge impact, but something to look at.

Production

(OK)

Electrolytic synthesis

1. The doi link for one of the references does not work. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F14356007.a11+293 That is the second issue I've found. We should go check all these links manually (really should check all links of any kind manually.)

2. Do we have to wikilink the concept of a doi? This seems like a waste of blue and distracts from the linked doi itself. (Just asking.)

3. Need to look at the sources a little more, but had some vague concern on too close paraphrasing.

4. Struggling a little with some of the content in here (wonder if this is a result of too close paraphrasing of sophisticated science source). For instance "bifluoride increases the electrical conductivity of the solution and provides the bifluoride anion that is oxidized to form fluorine at the anode, while hydrogen forms at the cathode." What does that mean about increasing the conductivity of the solution? Isn't it just an equilibrium of the components, so how do you think of it as increasing the conductivity? Versus what? Also, the last para about Soderbergh and such is a little tough sledding...

5. Also, why are we not converting these numbers to Celcius? My vote actually would be to have them all in Celcius only (think the text reads cleaner that way...without the cruft of so many numbers when we show two scales). But whatever we do, should be consistent. I'm not sure what the "rule" is. If this were an article on a turtle or for sure on weather, then I would support showing F numbers...I am a red-blooded 'merican. That said, I think even American secondary school children reading this will be ready to deal with Celcius.TCO (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

6. Also, I cut the "middle temperature" stuff from the beginning of this discussion as it had no refferent. Think we can discuss the issue of temp towards the end where we discuss differences from Moissan (I think modern runs are at lower temp than him as it makes handling the materials easier (less corrosion)).

Chemical synthesis

(looks good)

Compounds

1. I added some more content on bonding. Think this is nice header stuff to lie over the top of the subsections. Needs referencing and double checkign for accuracy. At least we know it is not close paraphrased as I wrote it out of my head!  ;)

2. There was some "omit definite article" in here before. Whole article needs a proof for that.

Inorganic

(I think it is fine to have no text in here, just a "span breaker" for organization)

1. Would add a small sub-section on main group fluorides, probably after the metal halides, before noble gas compounds (we sort of have order going from left to right across the table). Just a para or two covering mixed halogens and oxyfluorides.

Inorganic acids

(think it is OK, went over it for logical organization)

Metal halides

1. First paragraph needs referencing.

2. (general comment) I think given the importance of this topic, how often it is likely to get edited (vice an obscure topic) as well how many sources it draws from, we should go with almost the annoying "ref every sentence" style.

3. The picture shown needs a reference to support the claim on distinctiveness. Also, I don't know about Re, but the Iodine article says the structure is actually buckled (although perhaps this is an aspect of crystalization). So not sure if structure applies to both. REally my preference would be to discuss this in text and then just label the picture as ReF7. I do LOVE the inclusion of this interesting content...just want it wanted off right.

4. I can't understand note 3 (oxides). What is "those". Also, I think we should be careful about saying F is unique. certainly there are more volatile fluorides than oxides, but many chlorides are volatile and it is well known that you can volatilze AlCl3 and the like (in non stoichiomentric chlorides).

Noble gas compounds

(This section reads pretty decent...kudos)

1. I got tired and did not look at the refs...someone needs to. One. By. One!

2. "Neon, despite the fact it is the least reactive through all the elements." Ref this please and also why is it less reactive than He? Also...bad English. (sorry, my Russki is very, very much worse.)

3. in THE argon fluoride laser. (sorry...my Russian is a gazillion times worse. Have to use a linguist if I spy on the commies.)

Organofluorine

1. Let's cut the gecko. I am ALL for some coolness factor. And things like dissolving glass and killing discoverers are pretty noteworthy and resonate well with non-technical types. That said, that source is pretty weak (waybacked, and a webpage, yes of a gecko researcher, and then his comment was pretty offhand, also have we really tried all the substances (would Nafion hold up a gecko? Waxed surface? Lubricated? DWR-treated?

Changed my mind. Leave the gecko. There is a whole literature on gecko adhesion and a lot of mentions on not sticking to Teflon. Would prefer a better reference though. See [2]. TCO (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Containing A carbon-fluoride bond (whole thing needs a scrub).

3. are "strongest" and "stable" redundant?

4. Fourth sentence leads to a "huh" factor. First we are talking about chemical possibilities than we conflate with economic drivers.

5. Fifth sentence, my impression was that most organic compound usage comes from HF not F2. Also there are intermediate fluoridation molecultes (mixed halides). Unfamiliar with the sulfur fluoride, is it really significant?

6. Try to concentrate on compounds not applications. We can't discuss everything at once. Leave applications for applications. Keep this on compounds. I know it is hard...but we have to draw lines...else we have duplication and confusion.

7. Consider splitting para two in half and adding a little more content on fluoropolymers.

8. I got tired and did not check refs...needs to be done.

9. Acetic acid is wikilinked, but was linked before. Entire document needs a laborious check for linking only on first usage.

10. Less flamability for CFC from having less C-H bonds sounds like circular logic. Surely there is some better explanation in terms of thermodynamics.

Applications

(basically OK)

(not a holdup for FA, I want to make a graphic showing the conceptual usage of F in different forms. It cries out for a process flow graphic, given the confusion of usage versus intermediates.)

1. I suspect cryolite was used previous and should be wlinked in occurence.

2. Wonder if isotopes should be first usage listed or not...donno...

Isotopes

1. Not sure if the NMR should be under isotopes or under neulastral. Just don't know.

2. The uranium stuff should not be under here. Should be under the topic below (direct uses of F2). As of now, we have it in both.

3. Shorten the monoisotipic to an en passent phrase (we already covered it up top). Does not deserve a sentence.

4. Very fast? huh? Explain it simpler and better. It is the absence of a quadripole which is the real advantage, btw.

5. Third sentence needs English idiom.

6. Second para, first sentence, error in number (grammar). First part plural, second part singular.

7. Last sentence, cut "the" before tomography. Also don't bluelink all the cancers next to each other. I would blue-link none of them (as not important to this article), but if you bluelink any, just Hodgkins. Cut "and many others" since you already had a particularly so we know that this is just a subset...don't tell us twice.

Uses of the neutral element

1. It is not true that the stuff can not be used in the lab. It is a little tricky, but people handle it. Even handle it in glass (if dry). Besides, that has nothing to do with application usage!

2. SF6 is for transformers, not switches. (I was wrong.)

3. (overall, this section and the following one on compounds are good, perhaps deserving parsing but hitting right stuff. I think a little more discussion of quantities or "first, second, etc." would be helpful.)

Compounds

1. The comment on low friction and smelting (in historic context) is duplicative. Better to state that it is STILL used for this. Also the part about low friction is OR speculation and I think wrong...has to do more with eutectics than tribology...and if we don't understand that...and I don't really...we should steer clear. Really...it is a lot more like adding salt to ice to melt it...than like slippery Teflon and the gecko.

2. It's good stuff in here, but we should try to org a little stronger by type of compound and/or by amount usage.

3. At least a catchall sentence mentioning usage in glass, fiber optics, welding rods, TCOs would be helpful.

4. Clarify the DWR usage (we do hit it) by mentioning Scotch-gard and/or linking to DWR. Probably seperate it out as a sentence of it's own, not just as an intermediate to Teflon.

5. Nafion should be near Teflon, not in the para with CFCs.

6. Also, we have some duplication of phaseout of CFC info. Maybe if we concentrate on amount usage (find some numbers) that will give this section more distinction and not seem like repetition.

Biological roles

(this is fine as a span breaker)

Living organisms

1. Second to last sentence: what is the function of these fatty acids? (feels like we have just transferred a factoid without understanding, withouth "so what", and describe only the chemistry, but not the what it does...)

2. Is the synthase just a protein that makes the bonds, or a molecule that contains F as well (unclear).

Pharma, etc.

1. The first para's topic sentence covers pharma and pesticides, but we don't learn about pesticides until several paras later. So make it just pharma from the start.

2. Cut or transfer the environmetal aspects of pharma to the enviro section.

3. The sentence on agrichemicals seems out of place in the tail end of the pharma section. Can it be built up to a paragraph of its own or perhaps placed with pesticides? For that matter what is the reason for F in the agrochemicals (are they pesticides and herbicides or traces of F in fertilizer, or stabilizing bonds as in pharma?)

Chronological dating

.

(looks pretty good. Only wonder if retitling the section might make it clearer why we include under bio roles. Not sure how...just a thought.)

Environmental

1. This is a picky one, but "due to" is tricky grammar. See here or here. Would be careful of using it and prefer "because of". If you do use it, know how to use it properly or at least understand the objections. In the first sentence here, this calls for "because of". (And this is a general type concern, meaning do a search for all usages in the document...

2. Add the role of SF6 as a GHG to the end of para one.

3. I think you can cut all 3 sentences at the beginning of para 2. (Who cares about the F in the rocks if PFOA is deemed a pollutant regardless...in any case, it's too much for 3 sentences and not well explained wrt the concerns...axe it.)

Precautions

(fine as a spanbreaker)

Elementary

1. Are we sure about the 50 ppt odor? I saw another source which said 20 ppb for odor (big difference).

2. Research and mention the (US will do) F2 exposure limit (my understanding is it is well above the smell limit).

3. The last sentence on skeletal disease worries me. At a minimum, we should not give the vague "millions of people have it", but better explain that it comes from occupational exposure in China and India. I also think we need to take a look at this and make sure this is not some anti-fluoridation-in-the-water silliness. (Not saying it is, just let's check.)

4. "Currently, most fluoride poisonings are due to the ingestion of fluoride-containing toothpaste." That worries me as well. Looking at the source, it actually says most poisonings are related to insecticide. A few pages deeper into the reference (other link) it mentions several reported cases, but only a few hundred went to the OR, 42 had moderate effects, 2 major effects, and no deaths. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/814774-overview#a0199

5. "notable incident in Alaska": let's be a little less vague and give some content. year it occurred and number of people hurt.

HF

1. I know this sounds morbid, but it would sex up the article and actually be useful content provision if we could get a donation of an HF burn image. There are some great gruesome images on Google.

2. "Formation of insoluble calcium fluoride is proposed as the etiology for both precipitous fall in serum calcium and the severe pain associated with tissue toxicity." Translate to English, please. When we use such complicated words, it clashes with the rest of the article, makes it look like we cut and pasted, and didn't really understand the content ourselves.

3. "have the potential to cause serious systemic toxicity from interference": I think this whole wordy blabla could be replaced with "can".

4. In general, these several sentences on calcium levels need to be content organized. I'm worried there is repetition of points. If we synthesize the information, it will also help drive us away from close paraphrasing, as well as just making it simpler and more efficent for the reader.

5. "Sequesters" seems like a fancier word than needed. Can we say binds with?

6. What are the "special rinsing solutions"? Sounds vague. They're great cause they are..."special"! ;0

7. "However, because it is absorbed, medical treatment is necessary; in some cases, amputation may be required" What is "it"? Also clarify when/why amputation is needed (seems radical vice washing). I'm not contesting it, have heard the same thing, but reader needs some insight for why we cut his arm off, when! (can be as simple as a small phrase, not much space, but I'm sure there is some technical insight here.)

Section naming

Wiki says not to use adjectives as section names (so it should be physical properties, not "physical"). Also, not good to have the same section name twice (causes issues with linking). So renaming "chemical" to a longer noun form will help. (I can fix these, but just wanted to make sure OK with you.)

I'm going to town on it. Don't be shocked. We need more structure in general (not just this issue of naming, but stronger decisions to make sure we have things under the right header, throughout the article, and that we are not duplicating things in sections.TCO (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming is OK, but I'm not sure that we should break the Inorganic compounds subsection. It just was more general, but when the break occurred, it seems more needs to be written, while it seems to me the article is big enough now, and it was OK before.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. It was confusing before having "inorganic" basically referring to metal halides (that was the content) and then we have the inorganic acids (good catch, that was worrying me too, as we have the fluor acetates), noble gases, etc. which are all "inorganic compounds". Just to skip a level of heirarchy, I kept it as is, but we could also add an inorganic header and group the 3 of those underneath. (If so, would add the TOC limiter to keep 3 bars only displaying).TCO (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant why not having these all as a single section "Inorganic compounds" or like that. But fine. I wanted to argue first, but I'll write a little on how things like HSbF₆ work, and it'll be OK.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine too (put it all under a header called inorganic). your call. P.s. I actually support having a para that covers main-group covalent molecules (oxyfluorides and mixed halogens). I personally think a little longer section on compounds is fine (it is easy for people to skip over it). I was not pushing it, since had the impression you did not want it.TCO (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

References

I skimmed the list of references and the only other bad one I think is the Vitamin one (114). Not scholarly. Note also, it looks like one sentence out of that page was copied and pasted into our article: "Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element." The rest of the references seemed scholarly. I am OK with the Scorecard for pesticide contents, the eMed stuff for F poisoning, and the ICIS as a trade reference. I will also look at them as I go through the article itself (in context).

1. I was a little worried with a few comments that we transferred a ref from other wiki content or that, for instance the Radon aqueous ref "might" support the text. This is basically the time to make sure that all the stuff is solidly sourced. That we can trace everything back and that for instance the refs actually contain the info to support the sentences they are reffing. We can't rely on old Wiki-article contributions (before R8 got here) or other Wiki articles. Part of the star is basically saying that at least at this point in time, the article was 100% solidly sourced.

2. In addition to checking refs actually verify things, we should go over the doc from front to back, looking for facts that are unreffed (I find a lot as I read).

3. As for the formatting, that is a learning thing, but basically, there is no "journal copy editor" who will fix everything and make it all compliant, like at Science or Nature. We have to fulfill that function. Especially if using the cite templates, it is important to just visually look at the output and make sure that what came out of the black box displayed properly. I think the p versus pp thing has to do with two different fields (one for page and one for pages). Also, if you are using the Magnus tool, it has a couple differences from the cite toolbar. I use the cite toolbar as it seems to be less glitchey, but then it is awful small and not very well laid out to do data entry. C'est la vie. Any ways, still expected to nitpick the output. P.s. I think there is some freedom on what format to use as long as consistent, but the general FA trend is to give article names, not use abbreviated journal names, include web links, etc. Basically the very abbreviated style of a paper journal is not needed because there are no space limits, so it is better to be more inclusive. Even with paper journals, as a researcher, for instance, I much prefer J Amer Ceramic Society which has article titles, for instance, to ACS which just gives authors and volume and page. (You can better decide if the ref will help you.)

4. Auguperse doi in bib is not working

Images

1. (No action required.) I did a little work with captions...that is "prime real estate" in terms of text, so we should be very careful to use it to maximum effect. Deserves a lot of attention.

Thanks!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Space filling model of F2 seems like a waste. It's pretty damned boring. Plus we already show the element in liquid and gas form in photos. I like the picture of CaF2, but again we already have a picture of the physical object. Some structural diagram of UF6 or SF6 or some other relevant compound seems like it would be better than just the elemental form. Commons has a whole slew of better diagrams to chose from (and that are compounds, not just the element's allotrope).  :)

Nice point. I added IF₇ structural picture, commenting it applies both to IF₇ and ReF₇. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

External review

I think given the importance of this article, we should have an external academic review (e.g. Christe or one of the ACS fluorine award winners) for science validity as well as for emphasis (make sure we are not under/over emphasizing some aspect). I have done this before for turtle articles and Mike Christie has as well for his. Would prefer that we have the thing cleaned up first ourselves on all the obvious things. Think we are still well short of that. TCO (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cryptic C62

Lead review by Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "represented by the symbol F" I suggest linking "symbol" to chemical symbol

• Done.--Stone (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "It is similar to, but even more reactive than elemental chlorine, the next lightest halogen." The laws of commas dictate that you must either remove the comma after "similar to" or add one after "than"

• Done.--Stone (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Fluorine forms stable compounds with all other elements in which the reaction has been attempted" Replace "elements in which" with "elements for which".

• Done.--Stone (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "almost all of which are water soluble." I suggest linking "water soluble" to solubility.

• Done.--Stone (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Hydrogen fluoride forms a weak acid in water, but is nonetheless extremely corrosive (dissolving glass)." I am against the use of parenthetical comments in the lead. The lead is designed to summarize the most important points of the article. Either include the tidbit in an actual sentence (not optimal, as it isn't all that important) or drop it altogether.

• removed parenthetical comments.--Stone (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "to lowering the melting point of slags in processing of ores." Need to has more grammars!

• migth :lower the melting point of slags in ore smelting work.--Stone (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is already a long sentence, so rather than trying to tweak this phrase to make it fit, how about removing it altogether? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I simplified it and removed some detail (covered deeper in article). We could also cut it entirely, but I think there is a desire for every lead to say where an element got its name.TCO (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Several chemists were injured or killed trying to isolate the element." Somewhat mysterious, and again, I'm not sure that this is important enough to be mentioned in the lead; it just seems like a fun tidbit rather than a crucial piece of information. If you insist on including it, it would be helpful to actually say why/how the chemists were killed. Spontaneous combustion?

  Removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite its well-established role in the prevention of dental caries, fluorine is not considered an essential mineral element for mammals, including humans." What about non-mammal critters?

  OK now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)