Talk:CrystaSulf

Edited again. Please check. Mary Y. Greening 16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmina (talk • contribs)

How is the chemical process CrystaSulf different from the Claus Process? This is a significant chemical process. I removed the commercialization heading to satisfy the dispute that the page is an advertisement. If you remove one chemical process then you should re review the others and remove them as well as they are commercialized as well. I am new to this and would like to know how the page should be re written to satisfy the editors? If the technologists need to make it more technical I can provide a more technical rendering. Thank you for your assistance.

Mary Y. Greening 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, arguments based on "X has an article so why shouldn't we" do not carry much of an impact here; see the policy at WP:WAX. If you feel that there are articles in Wikipedia that shouldn't be here, and you feel that you can justify that by reference to Wikipedia policies, feel free to tag them for deletion in one of the number of different ways that you can do that; but here, we're talking about this article in and of itself. However, I had a look at the article on the Claus process. It has seven reliable sources -- citations from arm's-length third party experts -- that state, among other things, that it's the industry standard for doing what it does and has been for about a century. The CrystaSulf article has no such citations (patents are not arm's-length third-party expert sources, they're documentation that the process exists) and has a name for the process that seems to indicate that it's the commercial product of a single company -- which brings it into question as potential advertising. So if the page can be rewritten to take out "CrystaSulf" and make the article the description of a chemical process, great. If not -- then it's probably advertising, unless you can find enough citations to make it clear that "CrystaSulf" meets the general notability guideline. Those citations would be descriptions of either "CrystaSulf" or the generic process in sources like books and magazines, written by people who don't work for the company, that state that the process is as notable as the Claus process. I hope this is the information you're looking for. You can get into specifics by following the links in this paragraph, or find general background information at WP:Your first article or WP:Why was my article deleted. If those sources don't inform you, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This might help make the article better. Smartse (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback. I understand now. I will work with the engineers to locate better references and find out what the proper name should be. I appreciate it. Mary Y. Greening 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmina (talk • contribs)

I added the suggested link from the wiki editor. I also added a reference from a Department of energy report. I have talked to the engineers that work with this process and they are at a loss for what else to call it. Just like the Claus chemical process is named for its inventor, this process is named as it is. The Department of Energy refers to it as a Hybrid process but that is not its name. It was suggested by the previous editor that it might improve the article to delete the references to the patents. It is my interpretation that this makes the chemical process more verifiable. Please review and provide more guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmina (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Improve references

There are references for the intro and for the patents but it needs references for in between. RJFJR (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CrystaSulf. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724150720/http://www.crystasulf.com/publications/2005%20GPA.pdf to http://www.crystasulf.com/publications/2005%20GPA.pdf

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) 03:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)