Trifluoroperacetic acid has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 30, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Trifluoroperacetic acid appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 February 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
@ DMacks: Would you please make an image using the structures of hexamethylbenzene and 2,3,4,5,6,6-hexamethyl-2,4-cyclohexadienone for the following equation?
Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 04:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
2&nb.sp;A &nb.sp; + &nb.sp; B &nb.sp; &ra.rr; &nb.sp; A<sub>2</sub>B produces 2 A + B → A2B
2&nb.sp;A&nb.sp;+&nb.sp;B&nb.sp;&ra.rr;&nb.sp;AB produces 2 A + B → A2B
It is a personal idiosynchracy, I admit, but I think the former looks better. :) EdChem ( talk) 05:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@
DMacks: regarding the image
File:PIFA synthesis by oxidation.png, the reagents are trifluoroacetic acid and trifluoroperacetic acid, CF
3COOOH, which has been written as a diketone, (CF
3CO)
2 (perhaps you were thinking of the anhydride, and missed an O atom at the end?). Also, I have a preference for displaying carboxylic acids as –COOH rather than –CO2H, too, as the oxygens are non-equivalent, and carboxylates as –CO2− rather than –COO−, as its oxygens are equivalent. Whether you want to follow that is up to you, of course. In any case, I'd appreciate an uploaded new version with the diketone removed. Thanks,
EdChem (
talk) 03:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@ DMacks: About changing the sulfur oxidation example to the generic case, I am concerned that the change is not supported by the reference. It gives the generic formation of R-S-Cl, but the conversion to R-S(=O)-Cl is given in the reference only for the specific case in my image. I suggest we use the specific case or we need a reference to the generic applicability of trifluoroperacetic acid in this case. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@ DMacks: Now that the DYK nomination for this article has got a tick, it will soon move to a prep before going to the main page. There are a couple of image issues I'd like addressed before then, if you can:
Other than those, I think is pretty much ready. :) Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 14:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford ( talk · contribs) 12:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | As the amendments have been made and it is generally the case that it is written well this criterion is met; I am aware of three errors which I would request be fixed. 1) In Properties there is a sentence which could be rephrased with "It is not commercially available, but can be stored for several weeks at −20 °C," in my opinion reading better 2) Under the preparation I believe that it should read "when the presence of water leads to." 3) In the section on Uses sub-section on Epoxidation the Organic Chemist and the reaction named after him are inconsistent in the spelling of his name, while there is a lack of consistency in the field it should be consistent in the same article. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | This article is well edited and complies with the manual of style guidelines, as necessary. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | It appears well referenced, focusing on the scientific research where it has been reported. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | It is sufficiently cited. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I can not see places where ones own research could have been placed, or has been. It is well referenced and makes sense while reading. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | On reviewing the material no such violations are present. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It adresses the main aspects of the topic | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | It does not contain unnecessary digressions or deviations and remains relevant to the topic | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | It presents information in an impartial and scientific manner throughout. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This article is stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The work is the own work of the authors, one piece is public domain. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The media is necessary to facilitate the reading of the article | |
7. Overall assessment. | With the minor changes made this article meets the standards of a good article. | |
Response from nominator Thank you, AlastairJHannaford, for the review. Regarding your three points:
Please comment on anything else that needs to be addressed. Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 14:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
|
Trifluoroperacetic acid has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 30, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Trifluoroperacetic acid appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 February 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
@ DMacks: Would you please make an image using the structures of hexamethylbenzene and 2,3,4,5,6,6-hexamethyl-2,4-cyclohexadienone for the following equation?
Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 04:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
2&nb.sp;A &nb.sp; + &nb.sp; B &nb.sp; &ra.rr; &nb.sp; A<sub>2</sub>B produces 2 A + B → A2B
2&nb.sp;A&nb.sp;+&nb.sp;B&nb.sp;&ra.rr;&nb.sp;AB produces 2 A + B → A2B
It is a personal idiosynchracy, I admit, but I think the former looks better. :) EdChem ( talk) 05:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@
DMacks: regarding the image
File:PIFA synthesis by oxidation.png, the reagents are trifluoroacetic acid and trifluoroperacetic acid, CF
3COOOH, which has been written as a diketone, (CF
3CO)
2 (perhaps you were thinking of the anhydride, and missed an O atom at the end?). Also, I have a preference for displaying carboxylic acids as –COOH rather than –CO2H, too, as the oxygens are non-equivalent, and carboxylates as –CO2− rather than –COO−, as its oxygens are equivalent. Whether you want to follow that is up to you, of course. In any case, I'd appreciate an uploaded new version with the diketone removed. Thanks,
EdChem (
talk) 03:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@ DMacks: About changing the sulfur oxidation example to the generic case, I am concerned that the change is not supported by the reference. It gives the generic formation of R-S-Cl, but the conversion to R-S(=O)-Cl is given in the reference only for the specific case in my image. I suggest we use the specific case or we need a reference to the generic applicability of trifluoroperacetic acid in this case. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@ DMacks: Now that the DYK nomination for this article has got a tick, it will soon move to a prep before going to the main page. There are a couple of image issues I'd like addressed before then, if you can:
Other than those, I think is pretty much ready. :) Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 14:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford ( talk · contribs) 12:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | As the amendments have been made and it is generally the case that it is written well this criterion is met; I am aware of three errors which I would request be fixed. 1) In Properties there is a sentence which could be rephrased with "It is not commercially available, but can be stored for several weeks at −20 °C," in my opinion reading better 2) Under the preparation I believe that it should read "when the presence of water leads to." 3) In the section on Uses sub-section on Epoxidation the Organic Chemist and the reaction named after him are inconsistent in the spelling of his name, while there is a lack of consistency in the field it should be consistent in the same article. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | This article is well edited and complies with the manual of style guidelines, as necessary. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | It appears well referenced, focusing on the scientific research where it has been reported. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | It is sufficiently cited. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I can not see places where ones own research could have been placed, or has been. It is well referenced and makes sense while reading. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | On reviewing the material no such violations are present. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It adresses the main aspects of the topic | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | It does not contain unnecessary digressions or deviations and remains relevant to the topic | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | It presents information in an impartial and scientific manner throughout. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This article is stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The work is the own work of the authors, one piece is public domain. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The media is necessary to facilitate the reading of the article | |
7. Overall assessment. | With the minor changes made this article meets the standards of a good article. | |
Response from nominator Thank you, AlastairJHannaford, for the review. Regarding your three points:
Please comment on anything else that needs to be addressed. Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 14:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
|