Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Tantalum pentaethoxide

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tantalum(V) ethoxide

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Sjkelly2 (talk), EdChem (talk). Nominated by Hahc21 (talk) at 05:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • mp: What exactly do you mean by "purely organic compounds"? Do you mean that the ethoxy ligands confer this compound lipophilicity? Then say that. But that's trivial IMO.
  • Alt1: What do you mean by organic legs? Do you mean the ethoxide ligands? The compound reacts with water, undergoing hydrolysis presumably to some oxide or hydroxide. I'm not sure it should be dumbed down that way. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Feel free to modify them to fit reality. I am not well-versed on chemistry and may not make the hook as accurate as possible. I tweaked them a bit, but you can modify them at will. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    This would be the most descriptive in my opinion. I'm not sure I'd showcase this article, but we're not selling it as an FA so no big deal I guess. My main concern is that this article depends on pie-in-the-sky patent claims rather than textbook, well-established chemistry. Then again, this compound is somewhat obscure so that is perhaps unavoidable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    ALT2 then. Thanks for your comments, Rifleman. i really appreciate the help. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Note: there were two different versions labeled ALT2. I relabeled the first one ALT1.5, as I assume your comment refers to the second one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    My pleasure. Sorry if I sounded grumpy, the fault was the article's, not yours. Let me know if you need any other help. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Don't worry; you didn't. Thanks again. I'd look foward your advice each time I encounter a chemistry article :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs full review now that hooks seem settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This article is currently way too short at 1091 bytes. I see that it was long enough when nominated, but since then large chunks have been removed by Rifleman 82 and Smokefoot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Just notified the nominator about the length issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I am unable to expand the article: I have not much knowledge in chemistry, not at compunds level. I guess that I may ask Rifleman to see what can be done; otherwise, this may be closed as unsuccessful. — ΛΧΣ21 03:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I know you guys put in a lot of effort in the DYK project, but I'd suggest letting this nomination die. IMO, the article is of a niche compound with limited use at present. It's not one that is produced on a grand scale. Its properties are a direct consequence of its structure, so it's really not that interesting. At present, I don't see it being more than a stub for a very long time. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. — ΛΧΣ21 03:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rifleman 82; good to know. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Article is well below the minimum length of 1500 at 1034 readable prose characters, and thus does not qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Article has doubled in size overnight to 2045 prose characters, and is now eligible for DYK consideration. Reviewer needed, preferably one who understands chemistry; ALT2 seems to be the preferred remaining hook available for consideration (I've struck the similar ALT1.5). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think ALT2 is now properly referenced and the length (5327 bytes) is well over the requirement. Apologies that I got distracted from finishing this. EdChem (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
To assist if a non-chemist wants to do the checking, reference 4 in the article doi:10.1021/cm001017j begins "Ta2O5 can be used as a thin film dielectric material to increase integration densities in the metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors and dynamic random access memories (DRAM) up to the 1 Gbit level," which I think covers the semiconductor part of the hook. Reference 13 supports the optical properties, as does reference 5 (with a google books link you can view). EdChem (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, EdChem. All we need is a reviewer, with the hook sourced in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's another possible hook, now that I have added electrochomism into the article. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I am unhappy with those "applications" hooks. The application is the use of the semiconductor, and the chemical is not involved in the application, but in the production of the device. Alternatively you could say that an application of the chemical is in making these items. So I will propose: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Review of article: new enough, big enough, riddled with references, The alt3 hook has presence in article, with citation and support from the reference (apart from the awkward use of applications). The language is according to policy with no infringement detected. References look reliable and independent and there is enough to prove notability. If my proposed hook is agreed this is ready. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd support Alt 4. Alt 3 is not right: "in the production of ... applications"? I'd very much prefer a textbook source that says that this compound is used in these applications, but I suppose that can be added as the field matures. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we please get an icon to show where the review is? Can't promote without an icon; it's the final affirmation (or rejection). Thanks. I've struck ALT2 and ALT3, because both use the "applications" word that both Graeme and Rifleman object to. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We need someone to approve the alt4 hook by the normal confirmation method, or propose yet another one. It cannot get a tick yet because hooks are not approved only supported. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Alt4. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tantalum_pentaethoxide&oldid=1021883433"