Talk:Biological aspects of fluorine

Biological aspects of fluorine was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 28, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Fluorine, due to size or style considerations.

Attribution

The article text was created by cut and paste from the "Fluorine" article of corresponding history time. TCO (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

(all low priority)

1. Research agrichemicals and see if it makes sense to have a separate section for 1080 and perhaps NaF poisons as opposed to designed chemicals like Trifluralin.

2. Read up and hone the org and friendliness of the pharma section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Biological aspects of fluorine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article or it's parent (fluorine). I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. LT910001 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

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.	Prose is for the most part clear and concise. Concerns noted below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede is too brief.
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.	Several unsourced areas; numerous citations are links to sources which are not provided in the bibliography.
	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).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Yes
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Requires improvement (see above criteria)

Commentary

This is a fairly well-written article and I apologise to the nominee for having to wait one-and-a-half months. I feel the lede does not do a good job of summarising the article, and that the structure is a little arbitrary. Would you consider organising the article according to the headings 'Biological', 'Medical' (subheadings imaging, pharmaceutical, dental, blood research), 'Agricultural' (subheadings insecticide,agrichemicals), 'Archeological'. Such a structure would make this article much easier to read by helping give some context to each of the subheadings. I await your response; kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the daughter article does not have significant expansion over what is currently in the mother. Also that at least a check needs to be made of recent changes in the mother that may not have propagated to the daughter. I also really wonder if it is the sort of article that should really be developed. Feels like an "X of Y" subsection spinout, but not a strong topic. I could see development of the industry article or the compounds article much more naturally. I think before proceeding further with a review, should get some feedback from you on if it makes sense to proceed. The generation of new insights for the parent is one benefit of these GAs, I had not realized though.

Could consider to add in the environmental and hazard sections from mother article (maybe the version that was longer from a few months ago before cuts were done). Becomes a little puzzle over what to take or leave in parent (or even other spinouts). But note, for Compounds, we did grab some content from the Characteristics section.

I like the org suggestions a lot (stronger themes)! May consider doing same in the parent article (only tricky thing is image placement, the PET scan is a hassle but I think I can make it work).

Agreed on the lead, that was slapped on when the spinoff was done. Maybe even a little informative research needs being done to really reflect and try to build some stronger theme. Could also be sexed up with some discussion of the danger/benefit and political controversy.

Just rewrite the prose please (if we proceed). ;-)

71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC) -TCO[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Am I addressing the nominee or a second reviewer? LT910001 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm TCO (main author). Let's stick to content not creators. The structure comment was spot on. You go, girl. Great insight.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first commenter that this article does suffer from ambiguous scope and might benefit from a rename to "Biological uses of fluorine" or "Biological applications of fluorine" to help define what content is contained within here. However, neither this nor how this article relates to the parent article is one of the WP:GARC. I'll await changes to the lede and structure of the article before I continue the review. I have also checked images and there are no copyright problems, so I have updated the criteria accordingly. LT910001 (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

The article looks much better now. I have updated the GA table accordingly. Things that are now preventing promotion are:

Several unsourced areas of text
Several in-text references to books which do not provide the complete references in the bibliography section.
Concerns regarding a lead section which is very brief and does not do a good job of summarising the article.
- I expanded the lead and used your suggestions about the controversial nature of the element...to basically just make the thing have a bit of a theme and a so what. Feel free to improve.38.107.128.2 (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edit. There may have been a miscommunication earlier, my meaning that the lead was inadequate was that it didn't reflect the article's content (which doesn't include the controversy). The new lead may need a bit of a copy-edit and tidy-up (as most new content), but certainly does a better job of summarising the article's content. LT910001 (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up a little, reduced the controversy theme.98.117.75.177 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small concerns regarding readability, grammar (see list below) LT910001 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read-through

Natural biochemistry

Suggest integrate "See also "Fluoride deficiency". into the preceding sentence, so that it reads: "only an issue in the formulation of artificial diets, which may lead to fluoride deficiency. Not required for GA nomination.

Dental care

"it has been understood (from population studies)" suggest change to "accepted" or, at the very least, wikilinking of "population studies"
The 5.7% statistic interested me. The cited paper cites a 2004 paper behind a paywall. I would not be surprised if that paper cited a third paper. If possible, I would request that you update this statistic with a more recent figure, and at the very least add "As of 2004" preceding the statistic.
"particularly those undergoing radiation therapy to the head (cancer patients). " suggest -> "particularly cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy to the head"

Pharmaceuticals

The following sections need sources:

"Fluorine is added to drug molecules as even a single atom of it can greatly change the chemical properties of the molecule in ways that are desirable."
"Because of the considerable stability of the carbon-fluorine bond, many drugs are fluorinated to delay ... from being produced."
"organofluorides are generally very stable, since the carbon–fluorine bond is strong."

This sentence is off-topic and I suggest remove: "Prior to 1980s, antidepressants altered ... family of broad-spectrum antibiotics.[24]" Other:

"treatment of cancers; especially Hodgkin's lymphoma" suggest especially-> including, as this is not necessarily comprehensive and may not be accurate going into the future.

Oxygen transport research

Suggest integrate " (because the normal lung function is compromised). " into sentence for readability.
Spelling? "Perfuorocarbons "

Agriculture

"stimulate the growth instead" -> remove 'the'
A little confused how this sentence fits into the paragraph, as the precediting sentence stated that 30% of products already used contained fluorine: "It is expected that how often the fluorine agrichemicals will be used depends on two factors: if the synthesis reaction will be improved (to reduce the prices) and if green chemistry will be taken in account to a larger scale (fluorochemicals are more environment-friendly).[47]".
Suggest reword "An important agrichemcial is " to show context: "A notable example of a chemical is:"
"It was once very important (for example, in 1998 over a half of U.S. cotton field area was coated with the chemical[48]); " suggest integrate brackets into paragraph for readability

HF

This paragraph is unsourced: “Symptoms of exposure to hydrofluoric acid may not be immediately evident, with 8-hour delay for 50% HF and up to 24 hours for lower concentrations. Hydrogen fluoride interferes with nerve function, meaning that burns may not initially be painful.”

Look

Good review, thanks. It was fun being tongue in cheek and writing something non-Wikibland in lead to shock the squares. I can't commit to fixing all the observations (still really unsure the value of this article as anything other than a spinout from main article for length...theme is not that tight.) For the agrichem, there was some stuff that was a bit off from R8r (no offense, he tried) that I rewrote better now in parent article. For the refs, I think they all were there and can be dug out of old versions and the like, but I can't commit to that sort of detail work. Really hurts me head to concentrate on refs, with the Wikicode and such. In MS Word and writing a document that I control, I don't seem to have this issue of refs wandering around.

The kid who nominated it is a nice fellow but he has not done any work on the article and just threw it into the queue unready.71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns regarding article scope, as we (?) have discussed above. I believe this article can be promoted within a reasonable time-span, so I will continue this review. If there's no action within a week, I'll mark this as closed. LT910001 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No action within a week. This article has the potential to make GA status, but needs further alteration as I have noted. Would encourage renomination when the issues noted above are addressed. Kindly, LT910001 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work to do

1. Rewrite the lead...maybe even something kind of a little less drab (more magazine style writing) that discusses the double-edged sword aspect of fluorine (poison versus Prozac). And just face up to the controversy aspect...actually makes the lead have a little hookiness.

2. Go to parent article and see what additions if any need to propogate to child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.87.91 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

atmospheric effects

I think these effects are more chemical/physical rather than biological. Focus is an aspect of article that has been worked on. I cut these as there are good alternate articles for ozone depletion and the section is off topic.71.127.137.171 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biological aspects of fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029202537/http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/emerging_contaminants_pfos_pfoa.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/emerging_contaminants_pfos_pfoa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biological aspects of fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most refs broken

All those harv [author year] citations are not resolved as actual bibliographic entries. This problem dates back to this edit from 2013(!). I wonder if chunks of content and refs were cut'n'pasted from some other article (license violation)? If that source article could be found, maybe it has those refs expanded. I don't have time to look at the moment, but it's a major problem for now. DMacks (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]