Talk:Iodine/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. will take a look at this - jot notes below and copyedit as I go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

''As previously mentioned, iodine is the least reactive of the halogens, though it is still one of the more reactive elements. - no need to spoon feed - why not, "Though it is the least reactive of the halogens, iodine is still one of the more reactive elements. "

 Done Double sharp (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Some drawbacks of using organoiodine compounds as compared to organochlorine or organobromine compounds is the greater expense and toxicity of the iodine derivatives, since iodine is expensive and organoiodine compounds are stronger alkylating agents - can you explain why alkylating agents are hazardous?

The main reason is that they irreversibly alkylate cysteine residues in proteins, disrupting tertiary structure by breaking disulfide linkages. Added. I don't think we need to show the mechanism, but I can add it if you like. Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That helps...but something in plainer English about what it does to humans macroscopically or something is better (rather than more chemistry)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not really that different from any other cause of protein denaturation, so I just added the usual results "This results in loss of protein function, disruption of cell activity and possibly cell death". In the case of iodoacetic acid, you also have corrosion from internal exposure, but that's not so much because of the iodine as the acidic proton. Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was removed again by Smokefoot, and I tend to agree with him/her. The precise consequences of protein denaturation depend AFAIK a great deal on where the protein is – they of course need not be in the cells! Since the only thing in common here is S-alkylation performed on cysteine residues in proteins I think we had better stop there, even though it results in more chemistry overload for the reader. Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Was thinking about a link then, so Alkylation is a target, but that article doesn't have much in it to help explain hazard....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thousands of kilograms of silver iodide are consumed annually.. - "consumed" strikes me as an odd choice of verb here...

Changed to the simple "used". Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The addition of iodine to table salt has largely eliminated this problem in the wealthier nations, but, as of March 2006, iodine deficiency remained a serious public health problem in the developing world - over 10 years old..surely we can get a more up to date ref??

Worth adding a line that its use as a disinfectant includes operating theatres.

Added. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Overall, looking alright. I just need to read again and have a think whether anything's been left out or any of it be written in plainer English (often tricky in these articles) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had quite a few problems trying to keep this comprehensible and not end up sounding like a textbook, for which Smokefoot rightly took me to task. ^_^ The issue is that iodine is a pretty common element that most people have heard of and we don't want to scare people away immediately; and yet you can't have a complete article without going into some hardcore chemistry. When I work up the halogen column to chlorine this will no doubt only be worsened. So I've tried to make the learning curve a little gentler here, trying to remember how I learned this stuff. (Naturally I learned it with the other stable members of group VIIB, instead of on iodine alone, but we can get close.) Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The good thing is the aritcle is only 43kB of prose, so there is scope for a little more explanation here and there (but yes I am aware there are daughter articles that can fulfil the role too.) Just looking again now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am reasonably happy with accessibility and comprehensiveness (though chemistry ain't my strength). If you can update the 2006 thing above we should be good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Added a 2016 source. Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• File:Iodine-unit-cell-3D-balls-B.png would be better with a page number from the reference book...but that might be hard to track down...
  • Yes, I don't have it, which is a shame. It is also in Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 803, though. Double sharp (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• ditto File:Iodine-pentoxide-3D-balls.png - needs some source info.
  • Source is Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 851. Added. Double sharp (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, earwig's is clear FWIW

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: