Template:Did you know nominations/Boron monofluoride monoxide
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Boron monofluoride monoxide
[edit]- ... that the gas boron monofluoride monoxide can condense to a glassy solid which when reheated can foam up to form a substance resembling popcorn? Source: referenced in the Catherine Boussard-Plédel article [1] (During the heating of the glass in the dry box, the curious phenomenon of foaming, which results in the formation of a porous popcorn-like glassy material, is observed)
- ALT1:... that a popcorn-like glass appears when the glassy condensate of boron monofluoride monoxide is reheated? as for alt0
- Reviewed: Pringles Unsung
Moved to mainspace by Graeme Bartlett (talk). Self-nominated at 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
This is not only an interesting hook but it really paints a stunning mind picture. No image so we're good there. QPQ is done. No copyvio and so forth. Everything is of appropriate length (article and hook). Article is new enough. The hook is immediately cited to the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids which is RS and verified after checking JSTOR. It's all NPOV, obvs. I think "when reheated" is a paranthetical expression and should be surrounded by commas probably but that's not a DYK check criteria so it can be passed absent any fix. Everything is otherwise policy compliant. GTG on both Alt-0 and Alt-1!!! "Bulletproof" LavaBaron (Survivor of 4 DYK TBAN Attempts) (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is awful, details and more details, when the main line of research in the B2O3/BF3 system is fluoride-containing B2O3 glasses, where chain-forming O2− is replaced by chain-ending F−. People find that the system loses BF3 gas. Not a big surprise, but that's what the article should be talking about. The hook sounds like what someone with no knowledge of the subject would write. Something like "As Boron monofluoride monoxide glasses lose boron trifluoride gas on heating, they form a popcorn-like foam" would be appropiate. In the present form everything just looks sad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.6.11 (talk)
- So can we take that as another hook suggestion: Alt2 that as boron monofluoride monoxide glasses lose boron trifluoride gas on heating, they form a popcorn-like foam?
- To satisfy 158.93.6.11, (who may be from Medical College of Georgia and which has done quite a bit on WP) do you want writing about the structure of the glass? I have not included that but I could add more material. The article is not just on the "main line of research" but includes earlier work, and gas properties. I don't want to remove details, but you can suggest ways to reorganise or express it better. So 158.93.6.11, which DYK criterion is not met? And a suggestion to LavaBaron, don't gloat about surviving TBANs as you may upset others! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- You could say alt3 that as boron monofluoride monoxide glasses lose boron trifluoride gas on heating beyond the glass transition temperature, they form a popcorn-like foam.
- That said, the article really isn't great. The most common form of the molecule is the cyclic trimer, (BOF)3, but it starts talking about the unstable monomer that is only found in equilibrium at high temperature. But the real interest is in the condensed phase – the article correctly says the trimer condenses to a solid deficient in fluoride, because it has lost some BF3 already. The in the "Formation" section it says that Baumgarten and Bruns were the first to make the cpd - that's plainly incorrect, as the reference started that Ruff had already postulated its existence a few years earlier. Then more out-of-the-way chemistry at high temperature, and in space. Even more out-of-the-way stuff. Finally, uses. The BOF process is a proposed process, if anyone could make money with it they would do it and not publish in a second-rate journal to secure the bid for tenure. This may sound harsh, but the referee's job is to judge fairly. Are there no reviews to work from, only third-tier Elsevier journals? 158.93.6.11 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi 158.93.6.11. Don't you want to register or at least sign a pseudonym? I have inserted the alt3 to reference your hook suggestion. I will check out Ruff versus Baumgarten and Bruns. Hypothesizing is not the same as making though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ref. 7 says "Ruff entertained the idea that a compound B2O3⋅BF3 is formed that is stable at elevated temperatures and decomposes back to its constituents on cooling, but he did not investigate further".
- I'm sorry, this is not mainpage quality. The article says near the top "The molecule is stable at high temperatures, but below 1000°C condenses to a trimer (BOF)3" and further down it says "When BF3 is heated with air, BFO gas predominates from 2800° to 4000°C, being a maximum at 3200°." What now, what does the phase diagram really look like? These are very contradictory statements! Do you see the monomer at 1000 °C, or do you have to heat to 2800 °C? Also, the statement that "BFO is also produced as an intermediate in the hydrolysis of BF3". It's kind of trivial, but you'd expect to see the hydrate FB(OH)2 or perhaps the trimer, not the monomer. I wonder what that reference 9 really says. There's much more poorly understood material in the article, and there is the big other issue of the point of the investigations in the system. There's two main lines of research: the B2O3-BF3 glasses, and the BFO/(BFO)3 system in rocket exhausts, this is nowhere made clear. Minor quibbles: formatting of references.
- There are those who say that WIkipedia is a tertiary reference, and articles should be written from secondary sources, i.e. reviews. I tend to agree. This here article is done from primary sources, and not well-chosen ones. I'm on the fence between
Resubmit with major revisions and Reject 158.93.6.11 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have added information about Ruff's findings. A review is in the Siegel reference (who fails to mention Ruff). BF3 heated with air causes a reaction with oxygen. This is not related to the phase diagram directly, as it is BF3 + O2 instead of BF3 + B2O3. It is not a contradiction. I could draw a phase diagram, but it would be my invention! Reference formats are the standard preferred Wikipedia form. The use only of secondary sources is an opinion only. There is much confusion, as where information is about a person or company primary sources are produced by the subject, and this is reflected in essays here. Secondary sources are needed for these to ensure neutrality and to prove notability. When it comes to chemicals, they don't write their own publications, so what is called a primary source, is actually a secondary source according to the essays here. However some author could have erred or claimed importance for something that is not important, but where primary sources report on other primary sources, it justifies the inclusion of the original findings, particularly as elected by another author. Us Wikipedia writers are limited to the sources that we can access, so if reviews are in closed access journals we my not be able to consult them. But 158.93.6.11, I will make an effort to look for other references that you may suggest are better than the ones included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- The Hughes Aircraft Company report (ref. 15) alludes to why reviews are preferable - they say that the available thermodynamic are much worse than they look, the quantities are notoriously difficult to measure accurately, and indeed previous researchers did go wrong. When someone works from reviews the matter is more settled, and an experienced scientist has sifted the evidence. Would you like to weigh in on the Wanzlick equilibrium or the norbornyl controversy while the issue is still in the air? I wouldn't. 158.93.6.11 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- You may be interested to read the essay Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/References and external links and guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- The references still need some work. Subscripts, superscripts, and suchlike. The title of ref. 22 is cut. As for pre-WarBerichte, I'm almost sure that Series A is meeting reports, Series B is regular papers, it should be Series B, even if Wiley's backfiles say Series A & B. I would lose the "Uses" section, otherwise we are good to go. Accept with minor revisions
- The references still need some work. Subscripts, superscripts, and suchlike. The title of ref. 22 is cut. As for pre-WarBerichte, I'm almost sure that Series A is meeting reports, Series B is regular papers, it should be Series B, even if Wiley's backfiles say Series A & B. I would lose the "Uses" section, otherwise we are good to go.
- While only registered users may submit a nomination, I was shocked - checking just now - to find that such a restriction is not in-place on reviewing a nomination. While I'm not sure I really agree with 158.93.6.11's criticism, it appears he has now assumed the role of primary reviewer. LavaBaron (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- 158.93.6.11 seems to be doing a featured article review. I have updated references to fix some issues mentioned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have added information about Ruff's findings. A review is in the Siegel reference (who fails to mention Ruff). BF3 heated with air causes a reaction with oxygen. This is not related to the phase diagram directly, as it is BF3 + O2 instead of BF3 + B2O3. It is not a contradiction. I could draw a phase diagram, but it would be my invention! Reference formats are the standard preferred Wikipedia form. The use only of secondary sources is an opinion only. There is much confusion, as where information is about a person or company primary sources are produced by the subject, and this is reflected in essays here. Secondary sources are needed for these to ensure neutrality and to prove notability. When it comes to chemicals, they don't write their own publications, so what is called a primary source, is actually a secondary source according to the essays here. However some author could have erred or claimed importance for something that is not important, but where primary sources report on other primary sources, it justifies the inclusion of the original findings, particularly as elected by another author. Us Wikipedia writers are limited to the sources that we can access, so if reviews are in closed access journals we my not be able to consult them. But 158.93.6.11, I will make an effort to look for other references that you may suggest are better than the ones included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi 158.93.6.11. Don't you want to register or at least sign a pseudonym? I have inserted the alt3 to reference your hook suggestion. I will check out Ruff versus Baumgarten and Bruns. Hypothesizing is not the same as making though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
