Talk:Phosphoryl chloride

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phosphoryl chloride article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Phosphoryl chloride was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 10, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
June 23, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Chemicals: Core Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.

Safety / toxicology

With such a high warning on it's NFPA 704 sticker, I would have thought this article could do with some safety information. It's curious, I link from page to page endlessly on here and constantly see big sections about safety and the words toxic being used to describe things, then I come to PCl3 and this article, regarding two extremely dangerous things, and see two sentences for the former and none for the latter; when they're some of the few chemicals scoring a 3/4 for health impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and encouraged to consult the MSDS, which is carefully cited in each article. Wiki-chem decided essentially not to get into the advice and safety business which is more authoritatively and more officially handled by other means. But we do give very good chemical knowledge, without giving instructions on how to implement the chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HCl and trialkyl phosphates

Regarding the recent comment in the article: From what I understand, free HCl can attack trialkyl phosphates to give RCl and the corresponding phosphorus acid, and so if you want to avoid this you need a proton scavanger. If you don't add that, you get a product just like you would with PCl₅ or SOCl₂. Le Chatelier isn't involved here, because the HCl is not taking it back to a P-Cl bond. I had thought the phrase "sensitive to attack" made it clear (I didn't talk about any equilibrium), but maybe it's not. When I write stuff like this, I try to be very concise and not labour the details - but do you think more explanation is needed?

Regarding the need for a Lewis acid, I haven't run the reaction myself so I don't know. However I lifted this information and the MgCl₂ example straight from the references I used. I suspect that you can do it either with a Lewis acid or with a base, but perhaps the MgCl₂ conditions are the more usual if they were listed in the books I used. I don't have all of those books to hand, but I know I had G&E and 2 or 3 phosphorus books all laid out in front of me when I wrote that section.

Thanks a lot for your comments and scrutiny. Funny to think we didn't even have this article at all four months ago! Cheers, Walkerma 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Phosphoryl chloride/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. So I will be assessing the article.Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was awarded GA-status some time ago, 10th December 2005 to be precise, since that date the GA-criteria have been tightened up and this article is no longer compliant in respect of WP:verify, due to lack of in-line citations.

This article has considerable merit: an infobox, equations, etc; and is probably compliant appart from the inadequate number of in-line citations. I propose to put the WP:GAR On hold to allow some time for improvements, and if the article is satisfactory it can retain its GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting. The article can of course be resubmitted for WP:GAN once it has been brought up to standard, which means adding the necessary in-line citations.Pyrotec (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]