Talk:Covalent organic framework

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 10 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GcBenedetto.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GBen3535

Hello, everyone. I am going to be editing this page for my graduate chemistry class that is working in conjunction with Wiki Education and I want to share my thoughts and plans for edits before moving forward.

This page currently includes multiple sections detailing structure, applications, history, synthetic chemistry, and characterization. The current content and citations are a good start but require additions and rewordings to provide more accurate representation to the status of the COF field today. For instance, for the reticular synthesis section, only one article from 2003 is cited even though there are many reviews and articles covering reticular synthesis related to COFs. Additionally, the information cited related to reticular synthesis uses the same verbiage as in the paper by Yaghi and coworkers. This should be paraphrased instead. Additionally, the sections on gas storage applications is summarized well but sections like optical properties and catalysis is lacking in terms of detail and up to date citations. The synthetic chemistry section discusses multiple methods for COF formation, but the examples cited stop at 2013. The synthetic accessibility of COFs has increased in the last couple years so this should be represented in the article.

My planned edits include restructuring the contents to begin with structure and synthesis, then properties, followed by applications. I believe that this flow makes more logical sense that what is currently employed. Additionally, I plan to improve the reticular synthesis section by paraphrasing the currently included citation and providing a more detailed, up to date description of the field. I plan to include a section describing the unique properties of COFs (optical properties, interfacial effects, porosity, etc.), which have been described in numerous recent reviews. Finally, I will update the section on applications that more fully describes the current state of the field (including gas storage and separation, catalysis, optoelectronics, sensing, etc).

Please let me know any thoughts, concerns, or suggestions that you may have. Thank you. GBen3535 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory source

Hi User:GBen3535, I noticed that "Synthesis, Properties, and Their Potential Application of Covalent Organic Frameworks (COFs)" by Deng, Lifeng et. al. was automatically edit-tagged (see it and other filters) as a predatory publication (and therefore unreliable source). IntechOpen shows up on Beall's list as an unreliable publisher, and that unfortunately indicates a lack of peer review that consigns the material to self-published unreliability. See also https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Questionable2 (aka WP:CITEWATCH) and the Reliable sources/Perennial sources noticeboard history

If you want to stay ahead of these problems, consider installing the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD) (a user script), which automatically highlights suspicious citations.

It's probably best to remove the citation and the material that came from it, unless you can find a reliable reference to back it up. If you're sure it's true but cannot source it at the moment, a {{citation needed}} tag might be appropriate, though as an expert on the subject you're probably the most qualified person to find the right sources.

Good luck, and sorry for the extra work. --Anon423 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question/suggested edit

Hi User:GBen3535, the 1st sentence in the 'secondary building units' section doesn't make sense, and I think a few words may have been eliminated. It currently reads "...to describe conceptual fragments which can be compared as bricks used to build a house of zeolites". Are you comparing SBUs to bricks in a house, or to the structures of zeolites? Maybe there should be 2 separate sentences with 2 separate comparisons. Emma Ambrogi (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Extremely informative article and only two minor points: 1. The capitalization of the first letter of words in Title, Heading, and Subheaders can be misleading sometimes in terms of header -> subheader and such. The size also varies, I'm not sure if this is on purpose or if Wikipedia is just being wonky. 2. I would suggest mentioning MOF's in the very first paragraph in passing since they are related and it is likely readers from that page will come over/go over there from this article. Bookrabbitwitch (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]