Wikipedia:Peer review/Fluorine/archive2

Fluorine

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has hit GA yesterday. Following Pyrotec's advice, I'm beginning a new peer review. In fact, when GAN began, I realized I'd need another one after completing GAN, because I don't really see how can I help the article (talking of major things) further. The article, when I began working on it, was only C-class. Later, it hit B, A and GA. During this PR, I follow only one target:

• Bring the article to FAC condition

Sure, any help is appreciated! Please add anything that could be even slightly useful.

Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RJHall comments:

• Some FAC reviewers like the articles to list the nationality and profession of the individuals mentioned. Thus, for example, "French chemist Henri Moissan" rather than "Henri Moissan".

  You're right, it could be useful. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Alt text for the Fluorine cell room, PET scan and Flourine molecule images could use a little refinement for use by visually impaired readers.

  Hmmm... I don't really get it, what's exactly wrong?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, for "Whole-body PET scan using ¹⁸F-FDG", you could perhaps describe it as "A rotating, transparent image of a human figure with targeted organs highlighted." Instead, it says, "Whole-body PET scan", which is essentially just a repeat of the caption and doesn't really describe it. I.e. how would you describe the image to, say, a lay person on the phone.—RJH (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, with one example that got useful. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• You could mention skeletal fluorosis.

  Not a very interesting or notable topic, but I added a sentence--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For a FAC review, I find it's a good idea to have all your ducks in a row with the citation section layout:

• I think Dean (1999) should be added to the Bibliography list for consistency.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• The ref. "see covalent radius of fluorine" should be in the Notes.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Several references that list web sites could be filled out a little more. Please add what you can find (authors, work, publisher, date, access date, &c.).
  • "High Oxidation States: Mercury tetrafluoride synthesized" Publisher? &c.
  • "Discovery of fluorine" Access date? &c.
  • "The mobility of cluster ions NeHe+ in helium gas" Publisher? &c.
  • "The World’s Strongest Acid" Access date? &c.
  • "The Russian Literature on Rocket Propellant" Access date? Publisher? &c.

    Done all. For the fourth link, replaced with a better one--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the cites list titles in all caps. I'm sure they are the same as what is on the cite, but they would look more refined if the case were consistent with the others. (Use of all caps is sometimes frowned upon on the internet as it equates to SHOUTING. :) Example:
  • "LANGE'S HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY",
  • "FLUORINE ABUNDANCES IN PLANETARY NEBULAE"
  • "USE OF 19F NMR TO PROBE PROTEIN STRUCTURE AND CONFORMATIONAL CHANGES"

    You're right again. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Morrison ref. doesn't list a date or page range.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• The "Leonel R Arana" ref. has authors listed inconsistently with the other cites: Last, First MI.; &c.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is one thing I would like to point out: in the very first section, 'a fluorine atom is more likely to receive a "missing" electron" is not grammatically correct. It should be "a fluorine atom is more likely to gain an electron". But check out my peer review of copper that's underway here. FREYWA 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  well, gain really suits better than receive, done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the Noble gas compounds to high oxidation states of elements discussion is skewed way too much towards the former. I strongly suggest removing a bit mroe from the NG section, AND add some more examples of high oxidation states of other elements (these two topics are essentially identical since F simply oxidizes the NG same way it does Cu(IV). Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe that's OK? I've expanded metals to a whole para, and contracted NG further--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks better now, although I would be in favor of having even more TM high oxidation stuff. Try to trim down the section names also. Nergaal (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

    Added more, and that'll be it on transition metals. And titles cut, so done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. A few things to look into:

• The isotopes section needs info on the decay modes before and after the stable isotopes.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Occurrence. Which countries are the largest sources of ore and which have the largest reserves?

  Hard thing...As of now, I've found only fluorite data (surprisingly even in Wikipedia). I'll try better, though--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Compounds. "This bond is the strongest covalent bond in organic chemistry and is very stable." needs a cite.

  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Biological roles. I'm not a fan of single paragraph sections; there is no need to give a title to a single paragraph.

  First three merged. The last one is slightly expanded. I'm thinking of removing it away from article; I'll check other better elements that have dating techniques--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

--mav (reviews needed) 00:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Does F2 react with N2? Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  It does. I've added a sentence about it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• There's a dead link. Apart from that, good work. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  Simply removed the url. I think that's OK since it's journal article, which has a title, journal, doi, etc. And thanks for such a pleasant comment!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)