User:TCO/Fluorine/ref checking 2012

22JAN2012

(change in approach)

I propose we just go through in sections.

• TCO from bottom, R8r from the top.

• use the sections here to list status (e.g. missing X, Y, Z)

• if citations are missing, either add them at the time or at least add in article

• We'll watch like hawks anyone other than us two, adding text (to assess for fact checking)

• We can ask each other for help or sort of look at what each other is doing. but if I lead from the bottom and you from top, will be efficient division of labor and we don't step on each other.

Link: Fluorine

Section-by-section control

infobox

Checked a few refs. I didn't find easily some ones, so replaced them with the ones already used (with correction of data). Didn't find the ref 10, but will try the next time. Others are OK.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you have the source, so leave it. If not, I've got smth to replace it with.

lead

No refs - no probs.

characteristics

 Done (no text)

Physical

17. (Meyer) Don't have the access yet.

18. (Barrett) p.1 explain well enough the very close similarity between O₂(s) and F₂(s), but never compares it with other X₂(s). Other pages, I couldn't access, but for 99.99% they won't have any more info on this. (here)

20. (Banks) Don't have the access yet.

Isotopes

20. Have the 84th edition. It doesn't F-18m in it. Can be fixed easily, but not today. (was so close to a clean section)

Otherwise fine.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Atomic/molecular fluorine

15. (Blondel) Don't have the access yet.

16. (Cordero) It's weird: the graph shows F below both O and Ne (to structure the text). (article)

29. (Cheng) Don't have the access yet.

Chemical reactivity

32. (Moore) Has it, but is of too poor quality

34. (Benson) Don't have the access yet.

looked up to #35 (Nelson).

My strategy is to confirm as much a I can as fast as I can before I get to the rest.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC) ...

In the universe

Clear!

On Earth

Almost clear. It makes me happy, but also suspicious about me. Am I watching carefully enough? (Looked twice before confirming this one, and from the beginning I knew that History would be one-of-a-kind, but still) Don't worry yet, though

52. (Villalba) Don't have the access yet.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

History

Sorry for not starting from the beginning, I thought you'd picked the top side. It was natural to me to start from the third section (far enough).

I'm trying to be as picky as I can. A general note: where I don't have the access and know something that has the info and cites it, I'm switching it to the one I can access. MOS supports me.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

58. I can hardly make the conclusion cited from the text. Check please.

All right. I think I got it straightened out, but you go look and fix anything. I rewrote the text a little. (we don't need to get into how spar came in there). Looking at the original 1912 translation by Hoover, with all his footnotes makes it pretty clear (I think) and enabled me to rewrite the explanation. I think I need an umlauted u on the schone flusse (can't find it).TCO (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC) One of the earlier refs actually supports some of the spat spar stuff, but I still prefer to leave it out.TCO (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

59. I've got the book. It only says, "Other important minerals are gypsum [...], fluorite (CaF₂: also blue john or fluorspar) and apatite [Ca₅(PO₄)₃F]." Just not sure that we can therefore say what we say.

I added another ref to support. I think we know (and want to tell reader) that both terms are still used (sometimes very interchangeably, although I would like us to stick to one in our little article to avoid an un-needed hurdle for the non mineralogist!) If you still think we need more, we can go add some dictionary sources or track down Dana's system or the like. Just let me know best way to proceed. (I may kick a little, but I appreciate the strictness!) FYI: This will mess the numbering up a little. I think in future, we should add a short word like Partington (in here) so we know what we mean when numbers change.

I just mean, it don't say that "fluorite" overtook "fluorspar" in use. But if it cites the fact, then I'm fine. And I don't think we'll need more. I'll read the paper you sent me tomorrow (or as soon as I can), OK? Too tired today for any activity. (Sure, nice idea. There is Ctrl+F, after all. I think I won't stop to add number (for me personally), but will also list the first author or something alike. As of now, I think it's OK to break the numbering system. I'm fine with it, I'm looking among the neighboring numbers anyway. For you, I'm adding the first authors for each ref past this one)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. I just meant as we go on. I don't want to make it hard. I feel tired too (was worried you get mad at me)! Still have two sections of content to do and then look at this stuff and then do a section of my own.  :-( We need to pace ourselves! On the terminology, I changed renamed to since named and upped the fluorspar to "often". more equal...TCO (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(current 59, Asimov, TCO add): Don't have access.

(Used Google Book snippet)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

62 (Kirsh) (TCO add), I can't see page 3 which is history in my Google view.

Here you go.

63 (Ampere). Right, but needs to be page number confirmed by a French speaker.

I looked at it. I can't follow all the French, so I guess we need to go to the translation help board. I did notice that page 1-5 seems wrong (seems to start with page 5 and go to about 32. If you look at page 20 or so, there are some letters from Davy in English below the Ampere stuff. I guess one other thing I don't get the 1810 claim and the 1816 publication. Almost makes me wonder if this should cover the Davy claim lower though.TCO (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

64 (Weeks). Don't have the access yet. remember how I was looking for a book saying who first came up with "fluorine martyrs."

66 (Storer) (TCO add) functions OK as an example of using Fl as symbol for fluorine, but ref does not support earlier stuff in sentence. Need a new ref here.

Rather "another" than "new." It may be too hard to find a ref saying our whole sentence, while two separate would be easier (since we have one already).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

67 (Brown). Supports the info, but I'm not sure that we need it. (It also says that 116 is gonna be "moscovium," but no, it's "livermorium.")

Do what you want. I stay out of the super new element naming games. I trust you...TCO (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Will remove the ref. Don't like the whole thing, but in general, the common sense tells me it won't be bad to keep it. Would probably be interesting if Fl wasn't 114, but, say, 72. It's in--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

70 (Greenwood 289-291). Supports as well, but I think that the italics were added by Greenwood and Earnshaw rather than the original writers.

I deleted my comment.TCO (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

74 (Hounshell). Also fine. But the page range is pp. 147, 156–57, 482–485. Maybe better to move it into Bibliography and cut into separate refs? Asking for opinion (not just waiting for confirmation).

You fixed this.TCO (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(new 74 Takahashi, TCO add): I can't access it and wonder whether it or the other ref are really needed for the para describing CFC history. Wonder if that could be all Hounshell and the one DD web reference I added (to support JV absorption).

Not really. No bug in removing them, actually--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

75 (Leech). Don't have the access yet.

76 (Hendricks). Don't have the access yet. Maybe once I have more time, was just trying to finish the section (not to worsen quality, though)

Rest are good. TCO, please look at those that can be accessed from the article.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(TCO, I'm on road and can't check Hounshell and Greenwood, but will when home)

I can't verify much of the WW2 para refs (just the web viewable one). Kinda wonder if all the refs are needed or are at right spots. Wonder if easier to put at end of para, but don't want to do until I can see them. Like the 1953 one, not sure what it is supporting, seems more about fluorocarbons.

One small nit: potassium fluoride versus potassium bifluoride. One source in article plus the chem laureate one I added say that it was a KF/HF mixture that Moissan juiced. Our article says it was KHF2/HF mixture. Of course the two are chemically equivalent. I am leaving it with the bifluoride for now, since that is how we describe things in Production section as well (and since I suspect that is correct, that he actually introduced the bifluoride. But I don't know. Do you?

Generally, it's obvious that we may consider KHF2 as HF • KF, not actually, but just to keep the same number of atoms. I have noted that not all compounds are written in literature as they really are, but instead the way they're easier to understand or by the chemicals needed for the one (2 KF • XeF6 insted of K2[XeF8], once even saw H2SO4 as SO3•H2O (it was referring to the acid, not the hydrate), especially when it's a mixture like (say) 1.5HF•KHF2. Just not to think of KHF2 (itself a product of HF + KF reaction), they refer to the chemicals by the basic components needed. This makes 2.5HF•KF, which is easier to understand. The bifluoride is implied. At least it's the way I see it. And it seems to make sense.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured based on our production section where we talk about using bifluoride, that that is what he actually mixed in (maybe more convenient reagent). I think the other descriptions just "simplified". Just leave it bifluoride unless we learn different.TCO (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Industry and applications

86, 87 (Freedonia). Don't have the access yet.

Uses of inorganic fluorides

91. (Harper) Can't access via Google (p. A26 hidden), but the quick search on "aluminum trifluoride," "synthetic cryolite" (searches through the whole book). There was only one "cryolite" hit, but it isn't just it.

Fine otherwise--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Refrigerant gases

96. (Smart) Never says R-134a is the most important one--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fluoropolymers

98 (Freedonia). Don't have the access yet.

99 (Drobny). Don't have the access yet.

105 (Mauritz). Don't have the access yet.

109 (Klingender). Don't have the access yet.

Fluorosurfacants

110. (Renner), 111. (Kissa) Don't have the access yet.

Fluorine gas

117. (Arana) Believed by the abstract (has the info)

A few fixes-- fine aside--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Production (in whole)

Fine!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Biological aspects

Present refs are good--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dental care

127. (Pizzo), 128. (Featherstone) Don't have the access yet.

134. (Yeung) Have no idea how to check it. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_2.pdf

Pharmaceuticals and agrichemicals

138. (Rentmeister). No mention of words "para," "oxirene," "epoxide," or whatever.

Checked up to #139.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

140. (Filler) Doesn't have the info mentioned! False alarm

141. (Hagmann), 142.(Mitchell) Don't have the access yet.

Rest is fine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: This section planned to be rewritten to have a little more info as well as be more understandable to a lay reader. Have pdfs (about 5 reviews, enough). Partial overlap of what we have. In any case, we have the pdfs and will all come out of that. See sandbox for draft.

OK. The sandbox is going great. Say a word if you need a boost, it's to be no problem. (Solid fluorine wasn't released...yet (know, it's not the priority now)) +you know on which refs you can rely right now and if ever decided to integrate (said that just in case). For many, I provided web-accessible texts. (Also, I'll remove the two wrong refs. Don't know why now and not when noticed)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Poisons, artificial and natural

147. (Proudfoot), 150. (O'Hagan) Don't have the access yet.

148. (Scorecard) How is this relevant?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Scanning

All clear--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Liquid breathing research

155. (Gabriel) Believed by abstract

156. (Shaffer), 157. (the pharma letter), 160. (Guyton) Don't have the access yet.

Chronology

All clear!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine gas and fluoride ion

Done up to #169 (Baez). All right.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All right--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hydrofluoric acid

172. (Yamashita), 179. (News & views) Don't have the access yet. Others are fine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Atmosphere

All clear!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Biopersistance

All clear!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Compounds

The only link is fine. But I'm beginning to be scared at this point: I feel there may be many pitfalls, just like in the History, and it may need further work to get the style (but I'm at this point limiting myself to correcting info and formal points). The good thing is that it's almost the end: I'm adding the rest of subheaders.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it is pretty decent, but we need to add a lot cites (some "CN" in hidden comments). Of course, digging through the refs will teach us something as with history. That is the benefit of rereasearching the content vice wiki amalgam. that said, a lot is recent info.

Hydrogen fluoride and Metal fluorides (main part)

Unluckily, the books not linked aren't easy to find: I haven't yet. :

199. Herring, 201. Jolly, 202. Cotton-- Haven't seen

Other refs are fine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Low oxidation state metal fluorides

Checked up to #217. Problems now: 210-213. Haven't noticed any note to support this: " electrical conductivity when in solution or when molten than would be expected if it were fully ionic." Point me, please--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

219. (Booth) Don't have access yet.

224 (Wells). Don't have access; seems unlikely ([[1]])

Fine otherwise--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

High oxidation state metal fluorides

Wells again unlikely.

231. (Vogt). Don't think it says it's a record; an abstract (got only an abstract) told me that it's one of the two "MF(7)"s. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonmetal fluorides

Everything's great now.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Superacids

Can't prove both Olah works, the Nobel Prize's fine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Noble gas compounds

No access: 266 (Lehmann)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Highest oxidation states

Note to self: we could mention the possibility of the OsF8 somewhere. We've got much, but this isn't the overload and is quite sweet.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost all are good now. Only problematic highest oxidation states article ruin the picture (except the copper one). It's gonna be hard to find them again. Will think about it. Also, I can easily confirm they exist. Harder to confirm their unique nature (that no other compounds in an oxidation state so high exist). And bold text to attract my attention in future. Read the message

Got a document for the need. http://144.206.159.178/ft/243/588116/14862785.pdf

Also, didn't see the krypton ref, will (try to) when make it to the previous section--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Organic compounds

All fine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Small molecules

280. (Sukornick) Don't have the access yet.

The other ref is fine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Polymers

The only ref (we need more) has the info--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Next move?

Ok. I'm getting closer to the end. Think that I'll have finished by mid-June (at least should). And then... What next? Is saying, "We did check most, none does that anyway" enough? Something makes me feel this won't do. The tough FAC guys will never forgive this. Since we started. But getting them all's gonna be a problem as well, especially articles. This is the question worrying me. No problem if can be found easy. But I remember my hunt for Ullman. Man, it took about 5 hours in total. I now think it's too. Won't search for each article supporting a single fact. The bad thing is, alternatives aren't available often. Your word now? Write me as you can after reading this, whenever--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We can get it done, man. I am on a tough assignment (but good for the $$ and actually helping real working people). Would spend more time, but I can't justify it. Will try if I have time, OK? Not this weekend, much.

I am VERY proud of how much you have done. We still need to get the orgo section reffed.

If I were you, I would just leave the outstanding stuff to me, but realize I may not pound it out for months. Would move onto another article and do it.

02:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations about your work. That said, I'm happy about you! It's good that important things are still paid.So no worries about that you got no time. At very least until you get back to the nicknamed alias.

I hope you're right. Am felling pessimistic, though. Getting refs to where we got no could be easier. But since you wrote much of that, may I suppose you've got some refs? If no, we'll get them later, no prob. (And it's not the only place to get refs for...) I'll do the rest. This is reserved for you. At least 'til I'm done with the rest. Not in a month maybe though. I'm back for the active editing (I hope), but for example, am again away the next week.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the orgo content comes from other Wiki articles like organofluorine (but was not pure cut and paste, was rewritten). They are lacking refs also. I think the content is "good" science. But we need to go get some overview books or review articles on perfluorocarbons and the like and reference them. For instance, for fluoropolymers, we really did get some decent overview articles and books (see the industry section at least). Probably the content improves a little in the process of researching the small molecules also. OK...nuff said...going to go spend a Saturday at work...

See here for some overviews: google books on perfluorocarbon and chemistry

OK. I just took a look on my Ullman. It really can be useful. (Also, if you want, can find a big Soviet book on fluorine from the "Analytic chemistry of elements" series. Offering in case you need that.) Ullman looks really good for our overview purposes, though. And there's also Greenwood I haven't taken a look on yet...not a job for today. (Note to self: something tells me our citation style for the book is incorrect, given its complicated "separate authors for each article" system.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the orgo Ulmann article can be used a lot. Yeah, our ref style on that may need work (since Ullman is more of a brand than an author). Like "Jane's". I would stay away from the Soviet source, given this is English wiki (less helpful for readers). Good luck, slugger.69.40.252.66 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just finished. Let's see what we can do about the problems left (mean here more like the unchecked info rather than unsourced at all, although it is valid for all problems). I'll try to write a strategy to take of them. But not today, OK? --R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ooh, and one more. There are a few refs coming from you (don't claim this, but some almost definitely are, for example, the bio stuff), maybe you could take a look. I realize there may be gazillions of reasons way more important than this (work, family, etc). Just asking if it's possible. Regardless, I hope (no promises) to get rid of most of citation problems (essential -- res missing) by the end of the month (will be unavailable from the first), should be able to do some work tomorrow already. So that when I get back (3 to 4 weeks later), we could do the better part of the work. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Strategy draft

1. Remove all the refs I have problems with now
2. Take care of places needing cites (again, gotta be careful) When impossible, leave a CN note. Leave the organic stuff to TCO
3. Take care of the unseen refs-- replacing them is likely to be the easiest solution.
4. Try to take care of the problems remaining
5. If anything's left, then beg for refs? Source exchange, or? Although it'll be discussed further (unless it's all done before that, on which I hope)

See resource request. Should give you something to get started on researching the organic stuff.

If you need more, ask MaterialScientis to do a lit search for books or review articles on organic fluorine chemistry.

I really can't commit to any timing for doing the orgo research. Sorry. Work more important. This is a diversion and unpaid. Also, have some health/concentration issues.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Great advice. What I would do myself :) Right after looking at the sources I've got (but haven't used). Impossible not to notice you systematized the concept, though. Thanks, for both this and the effort.

Sure, no need to say over. Do whatever you need to do, I understand you completely.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)