Talk:Xenon tetrafluoride

Shape

the molecular shape isn't octahedreal - its square planar. The VSEPR shape is octahedral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.lifeguard (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not binary

It is defentatly not binary. This whole article is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.165.229 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any compound with only two elements is binary. XeF₄ has just two elements, Xe and F. Therefore it is binary.

Ben (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wha?

References: isn't citing WikiAnswers a BAD idea? Isn't the explanation given on the page enough to not require a reference?

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes?

The flash point value of "? °C" seems to suggest that the compound is flammable, though the exact value of the flash point is not known. But since this is a strong oxidizing agent it is not likely to be flammable. --Szaszicska (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction states that it forms by the reaction of Xe and F2 in the ratio of 1 mol Xe to 2 mol F2 and cites two sources, though the above statement is trivial considering the molecular formula XeF₄. Moreover [3] writes that one part xenon and appr. five parts of fluorine was used in the reaction suggesting that excess of fluorine is needed (to achieve good yields).--Szaszicska (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct/improve the article yourself. See WP:BOLD.—Tetracube (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be bold and change the text, because it seems wrong to me also, but since I'm not an expert I don't feel qualified to make a change here. To me it seems the formula should be Xe + 2F
₂ → XeF
₄ - Parsa (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks for catching that. No idea how it slipped the notice of so many eyes. :-) —Tetracube (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits by 98.81.17.215

I cleaned up a whole bunch of good faith edits by this IP user, because they introduced an unnecessary amount of verbosity (not to mention several typos) into the article. In general, it is not necessary to spell out technical terms and acronyms in full as long as the proper wikilinks are provided, so that someone without the requisite technical background can simply click on the link and learn what the terminology means.—Tetracube (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction formula?

The intro ends with “by the reaction formula:” and then doesn’t give the formula, only citations. I am confused. It certainly looks like one is meant to be there Starzajo (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lone pairs

lone and bond pairs

49.204.225.207 (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]