Talk:Fluorine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Fluorine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2014.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Vantine84, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on November 20, 2013. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

For the former Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides subsection, please see Talk:Fluorine/Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides.

A few points about refs (for future PR and FAC 4, which will be at some point, and just describing how everything's done)

  • They should be done with {{cite web}} or simlilar templates;
  • In titles, the words should be written as a piece of usual text. If it is a the first word after a — or : , then it is capitalized. The system is a general observation for science literature (as compared to the cheap detectives). Singular deviations found in fact are omitted here for standardization.
  • Access dates are done in DD MMMMMMM YYYY format.
  • Page ranges are standardized to the full page number standard, 4326—4384 rather than the last two digit standard, such as 4326—84. There's no need to conserve space, and we can use the more eye-friendly system (you can see the second number all at once without having to search for its beginning)

TCO fluorine to do list[edit]

1. CE from front to back. (to get me familiar with the material, fix some degredation, fix some second langauge mistakes [no offense, amazingly better than I can do in any second language]. (in progress)

1.5. Spellcheck, offline.

2. convert gallery views to bordered wikitables (in progress).

3. fact check (100%). Will require a uni library trip as well as research requests.

3.5. Resolve all hidden comments

4. Check infobox, categories, pics, etc. (side matters).

5. Check reference formatting.

5.5. Check dab and first linking throughout article.


6. Get a prose grandmaster (likely Wehwalt) and twist his anti-science arm into going through the article. Pay him back somehow on some of his articles.

7. Get a Fifelfoo ref format check.

8. At that time, should be OK for R8r to renom for FAC with SandyGeorgia recused.

Subpage for ref checking[edit]

Working page set up to get this done.

User:TCO/Fluorine/ref checking 2012

Copyedit for FAC[edit]

Fluorine has been to FAC three times. The content looks like it's all there. Just needs some work on the prose, in my view. So, I've copy edited the lede, using the following structure:

  • characteristics
  • history
  • applications
  • environmental interactions.

I then restructured the sections in the main body of the article to follow the lede.

I now intend to copyedit the main body of the article. Further adjustments to structure may result, as well as to the lede. Cld be slow going but hopefully not, given all the terrific content already here. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

First ce pass, covering sections 1 to 3, done. Sandbh (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sections 4 and 5 done. Sandbh (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Section 6 done. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sections 7 through 9 done. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Sections 10 and 11 done. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. A few bags if you don't mind (explain please or, if an obvious mistake, I'll fix later). Most notes are for self (so I consult a grammar book and craft English better). Give them a though too, please.

I was very picky, as I can see now, so maybe most point aren't that good.

Why did atomic no. in the first sentence go? (want it back)

Pending. Fixed In the first pass I wanted to make the lede more engaging and atomic number doesn't say anything. It's just a number which is also listed in the infobox. We can put it back if you think it's important. Update: restored. Sandbh (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

gaseous fluorocarbons start to be produce and -- grammerz?

Fixed
  • a significant disordering of its molecular structure -- wlink went missing
To be fixed wlink went nowhere---article does not exist

fluorine's vs of fluorine -- may be no bug, but I need an AmE grammar book to be sure

the first version is conversational writing; the second version is more appropriate for an encyclopedia

picometers; this -- a period used to be there. I normally use semicolons too, but trying to phase out, as I think periods are a better style (more readable). Will find out.

I try to avoid starting a sentence with This, when it's a continuation of the previous sentence
Why?
Partly discussed here: because the object that the this is referring to can sometimes be unclear Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

all—outside -- what is the principle difference between an em dash and a spaced en dash? (I like em better, but want to know nonetheless).

No difference; personal preference
  • (rocky planets like Earth tend to concentrate elements that form non-volatile compounds) -- good note went missing
To be checked. The full paragraph was, 'Fluorine is the thirteenth most common element in the Earth's crust, comprising between 600 and 700 ppm by mass (rocky planets like Earth tend to concentrate elements that form non-volatile compounds).[80] On Earth, fluorine, because of its reactivity, is found essentially only in mineral compounds. The three most industrially significant are fluorite, fluorapatite, and cryolite:[81][82]' The words in parentheses have no connection to the paragraph's topic sentence. And I couldn't find anything about that in ref 89.
That's a good note and is relevant, but this could be done better. I'll look at it later.
Fixed Sandbh (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

contain fluoride vs. include fluorine among their constituents -- the former seems to be shorter and nicer (?)

To think about some more I don't think all fluorine minerals are fluorides so its probably safer to use talk about containing fluorine rather than fluoride

see the explanation by Clark. --- why "the" here? (like "no pun intended" has no "is") Also, why isn't he Jim anymore?

"no pun intended" is proper English whereas 'see explanation by Clark' isn't---would have to ask a grammar expert why this is so. In academic referencing, with few exceptions, only second names are used.
  • The para under ClF3 pic -- Three paras are better than one (readability).
To be reviewed Tend to agree however bullet points won't survive FAC. Have turned bullets into paras.
Oh, right. Paras are fine with me as well.

the heavier heavier -- bug

Fixed Sandbh (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of the lightest noble gases form binary fluorides of only limited stability -- Mmm. I would think of a compound like Mn2O7 as of "limited stability," not ArHF and stuff, which are unstable

Fixed changed to exceptionally limited stability

relevance? -- will explain later; reworded Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed

inertness; stability; non-wetting by water and oils; and slipperiness -- we can use commas?

To be reviewed semicolons are better for list-like parts of sentences.
Mmmmm, don't think so. In such cases, semicolons and commas normally have the same function, but semicolons make reading harder. I mean, try this: "the party was attended by Jim; Alice; and John." vs. "the party was attended by Jim, Alice, and John."
For bulleted lists, semicolons are a must have. Same for lists like "the party was attended by a) Jim; b) Alice; and c) John." You do make long pauses in such cases, so a semicolon reflects the fact. In a simple list, you normally don't, so no semicolon is needed. Many people do, though, yes, but on occasion and this happens in other cases a comma would serve better.
Fixed changed back to commas Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

suggested that the acid vs. suggested that hydrofluoric acid -- "the" follows the logic of the discussion better

Would normally agree if the entire section and all of its paras were about HF. But it's not so 'suggested that hydrofluoric acid' in this para topic sentence confirms to the reader that we are still talking about HF.

bifluoride vs. difluoride -- need to refresh my internal cache (I thought it was "bi" due to hydrogen)

bi is non-IUPAC---should say 'hydrogen' instead e.g. sodium hydrogen carbonate. I've only ever heard of difluorides never bifluorides. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
We need difluoride back. Of course. Your act has puzzled me for a while and I thought I was wrong. But no, difluoride is a used word, standing for the (HF2)- ion. It is not IUPAC-consistent, but we don't have to stick to them. This is real usage in industry.

proved to conduct electricity vs. proved capable of conducting electricity -- the former seems to be less complex with not losing any point

Less complex yes, but not good English

temperatures, which slowed vs. temperatures; this slowed -- the former sounds like natural language to me

To be reviewed fixed with rewording

constructed more corrosion-resistant equipment vs constructed equipment that was more corrosion-resistant -- same

To be reviewed first one is good and that is the way the article reads now

Teflon ((C2F4)n) -- not sure if we need the formula here (not very important to me)

I added it because the first thing I wondered when I saw 'Teflon' was, what was its formula? I though it would be complicated but wow, it sure isn't.
I know what you mean. Okay, it shall be in, then.

Large-scale productions vs. Large-scale production -- the latter seems to be right; why did we have the former, did it make sense to?

I don't know why; it didn't make sense to. The latter is proper English.
  • ('poly-' meaning many) -- wrong quotation marks (AmE vs. almostalltheotherE)
Fixed

through 1989 vs. up to 1989 -- I like the former better somehow (not very impportant)

'through 1989' is a little bit unclear as to its meaning, whereas 'up to 1989' is very clear

Production has steadily risen since that time. -- can "that time" be cut off? replaced with "then"?

Fixed

About 3 kg of metspar-grade fluorite are added vs. is added -- need to conslut a grammar book (suspectr it might be a AmE vs. BrE thing again)

Fixed; well spotted
Thanks

Other inorganic fluorides made in large quantities include: cobalt difluoride (for organofluorine synthesis); nickel difluoride (electronics), lithium fluoride (a flux); sodium fluoride (water fluoridation); potassium fluoride (flux); ammonium fluoride (various uses); and magnesium fluoride (antireflective optical coatings). -- aggressive punctuation (we could remove the colon and replace semicolons with commas)

To be reviewed semicolons are better for list-like sentences; a colon usually starts the list except if it is short Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
See above

why? -- a good catch

Fixed tx Sandbh (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I need to get to the computer with the Ullman source. Maybe this weekend.

end-use -- all added hyphens cause the reflex to consult an American

Fixed Good pick

this particular industry -- why is "particular" needed?

To be reviewed Fixed---reworded

for the substance vs. for this substance-- I like "the" better, need to consult a book on how to write good texts

'This' is better, since it's referring to something whereas 'the' doesn't do that so much

what is this? ha ha, will explain

Fixed

these other fluoropolymers -- had "the" before. Now doesn't sound good to me. (Who am I to judge, though)

Because there are two 'others' in the first two sentences, 'these other' makes it clearer that we are referring to the same 'other fluoropolymers' rather than some other set of FPs

melt-processed -- hyphen again

I think it's OK this time
Maybe; still, I need a source on grammar (at least for self-education)

the polymer has been transforming vs. this polymer has been transforming -- the vs this again

Same answer as before re 'this' being more specific than 'the'

what's point of having "for example" instead of "e.g."? (I suspect latter are better just as "30,000" is better than "thirty thousand," but don't know for sure)

e.g. is casual English; 'for example' is more formal---better for an encyclopedia. More responses later. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That's weird, given "e.g." is Latin, but I'll trust you.

is in the preparation -- not sure if we need "in" (I think Ullman didn't have it. Again, better ask someone)

"in" is needed

Some sources instead -- good edit

cheers

Up until at least 2006 -- I think if Carey got things wrong, we don't have to follow. Why have him? I really don't like this one. I'll remove.

To be reviewed He was right its just a question of using his work and getting the phrasing right. I'll have another look at this one. Have reworded. Included Carey to show that 20 years after F was isolated, supposedly reliable sources were still saying it couldn't be done. That shows how seemingly astonishing Christe's discovery was. Although, like he said, it wouldn't have been so astonishing but for the closed minds of chemists who said, 'it couldn't be done'. They should've known better. Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point now. Nonetheless, it's a secondary fact. Makes me want to reword to the version we had before and in the end of the section add a one-sentence para like "However, some sources were unacknowledged of the fact even twenty years after it occurred.[1][2][3]"
Done good thinking Sandbh (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

0,000 times as potent as vs. 10,000 times the potentcy of -- I think it's real language vs. formal language here (for myself, I prefer real) same thing in lead also.

Fixed reworded a tiny bit. The second option is better for an encyclopedia.

previous drugs—was fluorine-containing fluoxetine (Prozac). vs. pharmceuticals—was the fluorine-containing drug fluoxetine (Prozac). -- the former was less complex, wasn't it?

Agree but the dual use of the word drugs is clumsy
What dual use?
drugs and drug Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

all fluorinated ethers. vs. all of which are fluorinated ethers. -- same

Agree. All of which is a little more direct (emphasis on 'all')

blood, or -- not sure about this comma (need a grammar book)

the comma makes it clear that the two terms are not synonyms but, rather, two different applications

a common laboratory reagent -- thank you, a good note

cool

re perfluorocarbon -- is it appropriate in an article? even if yes, what's the point of "re"?

re is a proper English word. It makes clear that information about that subject can be found in the article in question even though the article is called something else Sandbh (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an interesting factoid, thank you. I thought "re" was short for "regarding" or "reply," like "I'ma" vs. "I am going to."
see Ask Oxford Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

these being -- remove extra words not adding anything?

these being makes for better English even if only in note form

(not your work, note for self) The injured included Davy, Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac, Louis Jacques Thénard, and Irish chemists Thomas and George Knox. Belgian chemist Paulin Louyet and French chemist Jerome Nickles died. -- nationality and professions of Gay-Lussac and Thenard should be in?

Fixed Good idea

(same) F2- and F3- -- aligning went wrong

Fixed

(same) references in infobox still to be of the same style as all others

I hope to find time for this during the weekend (depends on uni)
Pending Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(same) the U.S. CDC -- some things are better spelled out

Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a long list, but I might've gotten many things wrong. (I hope you don't mind if I find an American editor before the FAC, just to be sure. Now, please say what you think about my pickings. Also, thanks for the copyedit. There were a lot more things that became better rather than questionable, and we can still discuss the rest :) really, a good job.)--R8R (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

all good; more work to be done but so much has been done already which makes the final polish a pleasure

I've done some fixes I couldn't resist to do. They all are about structure, not grammar. I've bulleted them.--R8R (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

good Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
tx for all that; I haven't finished yet. That was just the first pass. I still need to look at the whole thing again to see if it all now works and that there are no unwanted overlaps etc. I'll have a look at all of your points as a part of this process. Fascinating article and subject matter, BTW. Will post again a bit later after looking at your comments in more detail. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Post copyedit situation[edit]

@R8R Gtrs:That's about it for me, aside for anything I may have missed. Outstanding items:

  • A few unresolved things listed above
  • Status of fluorine as an essential element: article says no; Emsley 2011 says yes, as a trace element (p. 177); see also
No need. I agree the case for F as an essential element is not made
  • Need for consistency with U.S or United States; article currently uses a mixture of the two.
Done. United States changed to U.S.

During the weekend, I hope to take a look at unresolved items and other things. I've checked you replies, most seem correct to me. Where I left no response, I agreed.--R8R (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can keep working on these. Would be FAC ready after they are sorted out, I reckon. Maybe ask project members to give a once over, too. Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC) :I believe there are is only two one outstanding items now (1) why? -- a good catch; and (2) (same) references in infobox still to be of the same style as all others. Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Four Two items now: the two one just mentioned and (3) 'That's a good note and is relevant, but this could be done better. I'll look at it later.'; and (4) 'Okay, I see your point now. Nonetheless, it's a secondary fact. Makes me want to reword to the version we had before and in the end of the section add a one-sentence para like "However, some sources were unacknowledged of the fact even twenty years after it occurred.[1][2][3]"
One item outstanding now: The format of references in the info box. Sandbh (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Sandbh (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Formatting of journals and whole book refs checked and adjusted. Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Have checked and corrected where required all remaining refs from A to S. Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A to Z completed. Now doing second "scrutinous eye" sweep of references. Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
A to I done. About two dozen more seeming anomalies to check. And then need to convert all titles using title case, as per WP:MOS. Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A to Z done. Now checking overlinking; sfn citation formats; and excess ID numbers. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Last things to do: switch to title case (or not?) but at least one or the other; see if the whole article still reads well/hangs together. Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Title case switch done. Flow checked. Now rechecking source reliability. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
All done. Good to go. Sandbh (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

English variety[edit]

It's not okay to change a variety of English used in an article. See MOS:RETAIN.

If you're not okay with it, just leave and we'll ask the GOCE for help. If you are, please help, but have that in mind.--R8R (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: @Sandbh: Think we should have a rule here. For elements with closer relations (more applications) to the U.S. than any other country, use American English. For those where this does not hold true, any other variety must be used. So this one looks pretty American, as fluorine is found in many industrial products and also is found in hex. Right! Count the number of British spelling instances and correct them all! Parcly Taxel 00:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
'Closer relations' says who? (this is a blatant WP:OR argument). Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think F has strong national ties to America, so WP:ENGVAR would default to sticking with the original author (or if the first stub revisions are inconsistent, the original author of the first non-stub revision). Double sharp (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Fluorine doesn't have ties to any country, and as for word choice, why not just use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English
Personally I would argue that none of the elements actually have national ties to any country at all. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I checked back and as far as I can see this article has been in American English since very early in its development. --John (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A readability check (R8R)[edit]

Prior to the FAC, I want to check if the article is okay. It must be okay, but it's better to check. I will not write about things regarding English, just a reader's impression. After I finish, I'll give it another thought and fix it. Other opinions are welcome.

[14][13] -- need to check for that

[40][note 1] or [note 2][8][44]? -- I think the former is better; no matter what, a consistency will be useful (need to check the rest of the article as well)

Why do we have Chem reactivity before Electron arrangement? Logically, the opposite would be better

"Only one isotope of fluorine occurs naturally, the stable 19F containing ten neutrons.[50] The consequent monoisotopy and mononuclidicity are important for uranium enrichment, " -- Mmmm. Monoisotopy and mononuclidicity are not consequent, they're just words meaning "has one stable isotope" and "has one natural isotope" (thus equivalent). Better to reword that to have no logical errors.

United States or U.S. -- both are present, we need to choose one. Since there are almost 30 hits for both (combined), I favor the shorter U.S., except maybe in the beginning, introducing to this acronym (is this needed?)

",[81] whereas rare earths" -- wouldn't it be better to have a separate sentence for rare earths?

"Among other fluorine-containing compounds" -- more like "among other noble gases"

"Starting from an alkane, as fluorine substitutes for more hydrogen atoms several properties gradually change" -- could not understand the sentence after the first look, needed to re-read it once again; either a comma would be useful, or a whole rewording (even if the sentence "as is" is grammatically correct)

"with structural unit CF2," -- no dashes?

"but its composition as calcium fluoride was only elucidated much later." -- strictly speaking, Moissan is introduced after this note. Is it nevertheless okay to call him just "Moissan" here, or should he be known here as whatever else?

polymerising -- wrong spelling (the article is written in AmE). Also, the article features the word "synthesising" (and it should not)

"Its monoisotopy puts any mass differences between UF6 molecules down to the presence of 235U or 238U" -- already said in Characteristics. Here is a better place for this; need to remove it from there.

I will continue with Production of fluorine gas. --R8R (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • No, just go straight to the FAC! Parcly Taxel 10:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course, I will not. I took a great part in writing this article, I will not judge it after that. I am watching the FAC and ready to help the article get the star, not the opposite way. The sole point of writing this review was (wanted to say "is," but it's apparently "was" now) make it look good and fix things someone could ask for at the FAC before the FAC starts (-ed). I've taken part in a few, I know what can be asked. It's not like I can note everything, but a brief look at what I've helped build is still a good idea. That was the plan. Now I'll finish the quick check and fix it by myself, without saying it loud, will watch the FAC and help fix issues raised there, and I hope this will bring the star.--R8R (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Good luck for the FAC. I'm sure that after your corrections and all the cumulative work that has been done since 2011, the article will pass this time. Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A minor concern[edit]

I'm not a wikipedia regular editor, but I do have a minor concern over the opening language of this article, which states immediately: "Fluorine is an extremely reactive and poisonous chemical element with atomic number 9." My concern is the immediate jump to 'poisonous', with the potentially implied adjective 'extremely ... poisonous'. The concern is in relation to recent (in my locale) scare-mongering over water fluoridation. Indeed elemental fluorine is poisonous, but the situation is comparable to the situation with chlorine, which is nearly as poisonous, but whose article begins more sanely as, "Chlorine is a chemical element with symbol Cl and atomic number 17. Chlorine is in the halogen group (17) and is the second lightest halogen following fluorine. ..." and only mentions 'poison' at the end of the introduction as, "Elemental chlorine at high concentrations is extremely dangerous and poisonous for all living organisms, and was used in World War I as the first gaseous chemical warfare agent."

With this comparison with chlorine in mind, I hope I'm not incorrect to modify the opening intro of the fluorine article to be more sane-sounding like the chlorine one. If my edit ends up understating the actual poisonousness of fluorine, would an expert please review the edit and make any appropriate follow-up corrections, please? Thanks. -- wct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.145.201 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the change was good and reasonable, thank you! Still, I have a feeling that the para (first para of the lead) could be written better, can anyone give it a look?--R8R (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I tweaked the changed sections as a copyedit. Parcly Taxel 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox fluorine[edit]

I have prepared major changes in {{Infobox element}}. Description & discussion is here. Since the friend of fluorine are into heavy editing, I might as well invite you to take a look at the changes for {{Infobox fluorine}}: compare side-by-side. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still working on the changes. But I've made pilot changes to {{Infobox fluorine/sandbox}} to pre-show the future infobox. And there is still the side-by-side compare page. And since you fuolks are looking at fluorine with a sharp eye these days, you might as well check & edit the infobox.
Background: when the general layout-change in {Infobox element} is live, each individual infobox, like {Infobox fluorine}, needs edits to use the new options. Especially correcting the reflink [1] placements require an edit. For fluorine, I have made these edits beforehand in the {{/sandbox}}. Maybe you can improve too. After the layout change, we can copy-paste the sandbox into live to enjoy the effect. -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In the process, image:Oxygen discharge tube.jpg may have disappeared. Check me. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

'reorganisation' breaks our standard[edit]

The 'reorganisation' (section reordering) by Parcly Taxel [1] breaks our standard setup for elements. I don't know if that is a good idea. (the FAC here; look for "Isotalo"). The reordering of the TOC does not seem to be that needed. e.g., why moving history downwards? -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is OK, although you are right that I'd prefer history to be closer to the top, maybe between occurrence and compounds. Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Rigid adherence to policies and standards has hindered us from constructing dazzling articles. Maybe it's time to tweak them for each element, see what works best. See WP:IAR. Parcly Taxel 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Compounds, note 10[edit]

Fluorine#Compounds note 10 (current number) says:

118 squares with numbers and letters in them, mostly colored gray and green, with a few numbers and words outside the boxes
In this article antimony is included among the nonmetals (colored green) even though its chemical properties are closer to metals (colored dark gray). Separate sections are dedicated to the noble gases (light blue), hydrogen (purple), and carbon (yellow). Period 7 p-block elements, colored light gray, have not been studied and are thus excluded.
My question. About that last sentence: 'period 7 p-block light grey excluded' - I don't know the scientific background, but a. they (actinides) are dark grey, and b. aren't the heavier elements (114+) excluded & light grey?
Sidenote: expect color boxes in this note, as miniature legends. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I reorganised the sub-sections in the Compounds section and did a little copyediting as a result of which I believe note 10 is now no longer required. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no issue. The period 7 p-block elements are 113 to 118. The period 7 f-block elements are the actinides (except either Ac or Lr). Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)