Talk:Bromine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, you know the drill.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Bromine was not produced in large quantities until 1860 - needs a cite

 Done Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

paras 2 and 3 in the history section are not in chronological order. Is there a reason for this?

I was undecided on which way to go on this one. The reason is that Löwig found Br earlier but Balard published first, so he is the one usually credited (Löwig is not even mentioned in Greenwood and Earnshaw, for example). Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd flip them as it reads funny currently.

Okay,  Done Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

GIven that it is volatile and name means "stench", I was expecting some discussion of the smell in the properties section...

There is not really a good comparison among normally encountered substances to the intensely penetrating and choking smell of Br₂, although I suppose one should be thankful for that. I have added a description of the smell, and a more detailed descriptions of the not-very-pretty descriptions of the results of inhaling Br₂. (I suppose you could consider this another periodic trend: I₂ gas is okay to breathe in small quantities but not recommended, while Cl₂ was used as a chemical weapon.) Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

More important are the four oxoacids: hypobromous acid (HOBr), bromous acid (HOBrO), bromic acid (HOBrO2), and perbromic acid (HOBrO3). - err, why?

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Brominated flame retardants represent a commodity of growing importance, and represent the largest commercial use of bromine. - try not to use the same verb twice in the same sentence

Better? Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think this works better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

what happened to ref Greenwood793?

Oops! Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The last para of Properties section - any possible significance or practical use?

Well, coolness factor aside, I don't think there is one now due to the immense pressures involved. It's also not really unique to Br: of all the nonmetals that can be investigated, only He, C, F, Ne, Ar, and Kr have not yet been metallised (we obviously can't do Rn, and I've seen conflicting reports about N). Still, I do think such phase changes are interesting, since they are an intrinsic part of the phase diagram of the element. Double sharp (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Alkene-bromine-addition-2D-skeletal.png lacks a description or source

Added. Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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: well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)