Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2014) (bot
Line 173: Line 173:


Hello, chemists! Is this a notable chemical, and should this old stale draft be kept? —[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, chemists! Is this a notable chemical, and should this old stale draft be kept? —[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

== [[Calcium_citrate#Chemical_properties]] ==

The paragraph about taste reads 1.) like a 5th-grader essay, and 2.) it's bull... I have some calcium citrate tetrahydrate right here, pure and properly labeled from a pharmaceutical manufacturer. It's chalky and tastes of not much anything, and that's a fact.

An unpublished fact, unfortunately, as far as my web searches are going. Should I delete the whole part anyway and replace it with my "original research"? Heck I would mistrust such an edit even myself. Can someone from this project help out? [[Special:Contributions/217.231.102.73|217.231.102.73]] ([[User talk:217.231.102.73|talk]]) 14:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:06, 20 February 2014

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChemicals NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this page or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shortcuts

Chemicals Discussion

The discussion here concerns all parts of the Chemicals WikiProject, including the infoboxes, lists, standards, includes/excludes, tools, contributors, etc etc etc. Feel free to add your comments to any section here, or start a new topic. Topics not specifically related to the Chemicals WikiProject would be better served at other wikipages.

Actual wikiproject info: statistics and alerts

WPChem worklist pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 2
GA 16
B 172
C 76
Start 110
Stub 15
List 1
NA 3
Assessed 395
Total 395
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,492 Ω = 3.82

The worklist shows the actual work to be done to achieve the goals of the Chemicals wikiproject. The choice of important compounds articles to work on has been finalized in an earlier stage of the wikiproject (around mid 2005), and no further articles are added, although we remain open for strong suggestions on this talkpage. The work these days focuses on improving the articles, from Chem Stub all the way to Chem A-Class articles. The table below shows that progress.

Worklist historical status
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 
Grade 		Jun Oct May Oct Mar Oct Feb Aug Apr Dec
Template:Chem A-Class 29 26 32 32 33 25 25 23 18 18
Template:Chem B-Class 71 84 101 130 148 156 158 180 185 188
Template:Chem Start 112 131 199 190 174 174 180 153 160 161
Template:Chem Stub 97 130 46 29 27 27 19 26 19 18
unclassified 76 - - - - - - - - -
Total 385 371 378 381 382 382 382 382 382 382
percentage
≥Chem Start 		55.1 65.0 87.8 92.3 92.9 92.9 95.0 94.0 95.0 95.3
weighted
progress, % 		42.2 50.4 57.8 60.8 62.2 61.7 62.4 63.1 63.2 63.9


The percentage ≥ Chem Start was indicative of the initial effort. Now that we are progressing to more advanced progress, the weighted progress indicator is used, calculated as (Unclass*0 + Stub*1 + Start*2 + B-Class*3 + A-Class*4) / (Articles*4).


Chemicals articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 2 2 2 7
FL 1 1
GA 1 12 23 12 48
B 21 140 324 272 5 762
C 7 73 356 1,148 12 1,596
Start 94 1,100 5,120 61 6,375
Stub 379 10,371 2 57 10,809
List 1 7 1,538 28 111 1,685
Disambig 8 26 34
Template 1 370 371
NA 19 155 3,518 3,692
Other 1 18 19
Assessed 30 322 2,211 18,628 3,962 246 25,399
Unassessed 40 378 418
Total 30 322 2,211 18,628 4,002 624 25,817
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 105,495 Ω = 5.38


For the statistics for all chemicals, as registered by the bot, also see complete list

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

  • 01 Jun 2024 – 2-Pyridone (data page) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Lemonaka (t · c) was closed as merge by Let'srun (t · c) on 08 Jun 2024; see discussion (4 participants)

Proposed deletions

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(18 more...)

Fluorine peer review

Please review and fix "Fluorine". In particular, I know there are some top notch practicing chemists here. What I want is a check of the science, especially the structural compound review at the end for mistakes in fact or emphasis. Thanks.-TCO

FA articles not in the CHEM AQ overview?

I do not understand why not all qualities are in the quality overview. E.g. Category:FA-Class chemicals articles. -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is something to do with Template:WikiProject Chemicals but I can't figure it out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is an amalgam an alloy?

Amalgam (chemistry) defines itself as a "substance formed by the reaction of mercury with another metal" (links omitted, italics mine). It never says it is an alloy, but that term is used in one of the later sections and the alloy article gives amalgams as an example. There are scattered questions over years on the talkpage asking several related questions, getting at the concern that the article never really discusses the nature of this "reaction" or its resulting "substance". How is it other than just an alloy where one of the components is specifically mercury? DMacks (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood and Earnshaw refers to amalgams as alloys. IUPAC does not define the term. Not that I know of any other alloy with NH4+. BTW, the article suggests Hg-H bonds for the ammonium derivatives, which seems unlikely. There must be a book on amalgams, but searching turns up a lot of things on dentistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonium phosphate

This is rated as high importance but is a stub because the salt (NH4)3PO4 is unstable. I suspect the importance stems from the use of ammonium phosphates in agriculure, but the fertilizer ammonium phosphates are diammonium phosphate and monoammonium phosphate which are both rated as low importance, the former is a "stub" and the latter a "start". There is also an ammonium phosphate (compounds) index page. Could we possibly change the importance rating on these compounds?Axiosaurus (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to low. I think you could have just gone in and changed it yourself rather than seeking a consensus. Perhaps we need more explicit rules on what is high, or medium importance, and a consensus for each article with "top". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I changed MAP and DAP to mid. I think that any chemicals manufactured and sold in large quantities should be at least mid (if not high) importance. What do others think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The chemicals work list has stood the test of time quite well. I think any changes require a concensus, or at least flagging up to the wider community. Factors like commercial significance are part of the story but whilst some inorganics are significant in that regard, thousands or even millions of tons pa. , some are almost unknown to the general public. Axiosaurus (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This thing on "(NH4)3PO4 was sort of a chemical myth, so I converted an article that boasted of its import into one admitting that it is fragile and basically unimportant. In any case articles on "big boring salts" (BBS) often need attention. These BBSs include the alkali, alkaline earth, iron, and ammonium salts of sulfates, phosphates, nitrates, carbonates, hydroxides. These articles tend to collect all kinds of esoterica ("grandma's cleaning agent" type thing), which is not evil, but needs to be kept in check and described with some perspective. Petergans raised the point that many of these articles need some crystallography. I have tried to mention all of the hydrates for each of these materials. --Smokefoot (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am supporting what happened to ammonium phosphate. However Isn't the worklist historical? Some things out of scope do not make sense as they are major and important chemicals. But perhaps everything on that list should have importance at least mid. The worklist does not talk about importance ratings. The worklist only has 50 commodity chemicals, I think we can move on from that now! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resveratrol article

Like I stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology, "More eyes on the Resveratrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are needed. New editor Local4554 is repeatedly blanking material at the article without justifying his edits, and despite warnings not to do so." Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stereochemistry of norbornene derivatives

I noticed that the stereochemistry of chlorinated norbornene is opposed. In the case of chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan and heptachlor the substituent is “upwards” exo,

whereas for aldrin and endrin the substituent is “downwards” endo.

  • Is this correct? Or are they always a mixture of both isomers?
  • A related question concerning dechlorane plus: For the syn and the anti isomer, there are two possibilities each, i.e. “upwards” exo and “downwards” endo. Is only one occurring in the technical product?

--Leyo 23:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it depends on the particular reagents involved whether you get the endo or exo isomer: http://www.chemtube3d.com/Diels-Alder%20-%20Endo%20and%20Exo.html. To summarise Clayden et al, the endo isomer is the kinetic product and is obtained if the particular Diels-Alder reaction in question is irreversible (e.g. cyclopentadiene + maleic anhydride). The exo isomer is the thermodynamic product, so is obtained if the reaction is reversible (e.g. furan + maleic anhydride).
Of all the images presented above, only the aldrin one is based on a crystal structure. I'll see if I can find structural data for the others. --Ben (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the crystal structures of all of these molecules and all except aldrin are currently drawn as the (wrong) exo isomer. I'll make new images if I have time today. --Ben (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your investigations! It is great to get them corrected since they have been used quite a number of times (incl. outside of Wikipedia).
Did you look for crystal structures for dechlorane plus, too? If File:Dechlorane plus syn isomer.svg turned out to be incorrect, I will correct it. --Leyo 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Haven't had a look for dechlorane plus yet, but will do tomorrow. Cheers. --Ben (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading the corrected ball-and-stick models. What do we best do with the old ones? Clearly stating in the description pages that the depicted isomer is not the one that is (primarily) synthesized? Or even deleting these images?
In the case of endosulfan, chlordane and heptachlor, the skeletal structure needs to be corrected, too. For the latter two, also the position of the chlorine atoms in the five-membered ring is opposite. Shouldn't the same isomer be shown in both types (skeletal, ball-and-stick), even though they are mixtures of isomers? Endosulfan, on the other hand, is a mixture of two conformational isomers arising from the pyramidal stereochemistry of sulfur. Should we also add a note into the chembox stating that the substances are mixtures of isomers? --Leyo 20:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the commercially available, widely-used form of the pesticide genuinely contains a mixture of isomers, we should probably discuss this in detail in a section on structure and composition, and the skeletal formula and 3D models should be presented there rather than in the chembox. For others, where the images truly represent what's in the bottle, the chembox is the best place for them. I agree the skeletal formulae should be redrawn.

I found two crystal structures for dechlorane plus, reported in Tetrahedron Lett. (1991) 32, 3289-3292. --Ben (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I drew a skeletal formula of the anti isomer based on this paper and added it to the article.
Concerning the other issue, more opinions would be beneficial. --Leyo 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barium Metaphosphate

Hello, chemists! Is this a notable chemical, and should this old stale draft be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium_citrate#Chemical_properties

The paragraph about taste reads 1.) like a 5th-grader essay, and 2.) it's bull... I have some calcium citrate tetrahydrate right here, pure and properly labeled from a pharmaceutical manufacturer. It's chalky and tastes of not much anything, and that's a fact.

An unpublished fact, unfortunately, as far as my web searches are going. Should I delete the whole part anyway and replace it with my "original research"? Heck I would mistrust such an edit even myself. Can someone from this project help out? 217.231.102.73 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals&oldid=596338005"