 | A fact from Hexafluorophosphate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Leaving Group? edit
In the text "Hexafluorophosphate is ... a poor nucleophile, and thus a good leaving group."
I'm not sure PF6 is a leaving group. I can't think of an example where it is actually bound to another molecule. --Quantockgoblin
- You're right. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
the article is about hexafluorophosphate, right? edit
The recently expanded description of Cu(MeCN)4+ seems tangential. There are lots of salts of that cation and related ones, and PF6-'s role seems irrelevant, so I am puzzled by this bit. Any way, the emphasis on academic work gives undue weight, IMHO, to highly specialized academic research. The main consumer of hexafluorophosphate is in electrolytes, but that has hardly any coverage - seems strange. There may be other apps that are missing, possibly in analytical chemistry, but organometallic synthesis seems over-emphasized and would lead a reader to draw incorrect conclusions about impact.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1. The coverage of electrolytes and Li-ion batteries would benefit from expansion - if you have the material to hand to do it, great; it will save me having to look for it. WP:UNDUE issues can arise both when a section is too long or when other sections are too short. I suggest the latter is the case here, the article has been substantially expanded in the last few days and there is more to be done.
- 2. The analytical determination of hexafluorophospate is something else I plan to add
- 3. Cu(MeCN)4+ is not an organometallic species - some reorganisation is needed. Your reorganisation from a couple of days ago was a good start which needs to be built upon.
- 4. With the [Cu(MeCN)4]PF6 salt, the anion (a) stabilises the cation, allowing it to be used for non-aqueous copper(I) syntheses; (b) promotes non-aqueous solubility; (c) being a non-coordinating anion, does not threaten to displace labile acetonitrile ligands. This is an example of two of the most prominent characteristics of hexafluorophosphate in practice. Maybe I have not expressed the relevance of hexafluorophosphate well in the text; by all means, edit and re-draft. However, I do think it is relevant.
- Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1) Rhodacenium PF6 is a significant application? What? Or is this article about citing "pet compounds"? Giving kind of weight to esoteric academic work is a disservice to the novice readers, IMHO, young readers who are trying to fathom the meaning of "application" and get a sense of weight. Lots of references to rhodacenium? Even an academician would not rank this in the middle level.
- 2)Why does the tetrahedral geometry of Cu(MeCN)4+ relevant to PF6-? Is this part a form of original research or blogging?
- 3)Tangential information - the overview of noncoordinating anions is redundant from that article and the discusion of microwave syn seems tangential in an article about PF6-.
- The article is improved or at least thicker, just sort of bloggy.--Smokefoot (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I get it. You don't like my writing. You don't like my using examples to illustrate the points made in the text. You don't like my including explanations of terms in the context of the article, rather than just leaving wikilinks and assuming novice readers have wide breadth of chemical knowledge. You don't like my referencing. Any other encouragement / constructive criticism you'd like to offer? EdChem (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that you know enough to write for others, not for yourself. Few wikieditors in the inorganic area have your grasp, but perspective you present narrow in terms of generality of refs, visibility of examples, and the "realness" of application (vs a school projects). IMHO. I'll desist.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I get it. You don't like my writing. You don't like my using examples to illustrate the points made in the text. You don't like my including explanations of terms in the context of the article, rather than just leaving wikilinks and assuming novice readers have wide breadth of chemical knowledge. You don't like my referencing. Any other encouragement / constructive criticism you'd like to offer? EdChem (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Large edits edit
I made a number of bold edits today. A number of primary references were deleted because they are unrepresentative or WP:UNDUE, WP:SECONDARY. The article is about PF6-, not microwave synthesis, not the very obscure rhodocene, not a BARF anion. Some refs were tidied where the DOI gives direct link and the URL is not needed. The previous image of hexafluorophosphate showed a - charge on P, which is very misleading, since it is the fluorides that are bearing the negative charge (that is the reason that cationic complexes bind to this anion, inducing hydrolysis. Questions welcome. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)