Talk:Ferrocene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ferrocene was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 5, 2008

	Chemistry Portal Ferrocene is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
Core	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Diagrams 2 Pauson v. Paulson 3 Sublimation 4 Edits of March, 2008 5 GA review 6 Good Article nomination

[edit] Diagrams

I've created and uploaded two new images of ferrocene, a 2D black and white structure and a 3D colour structure. I can modify them if required. I've drawn them in an orientation which allows them to be compared side-by-side.

I think the current line drawing of ferrocene is a bit dodgy, because it makes the C-C bonds look the same as the C-Fe bonds. Having looked in my main chemistry textbooks (Organic Chemistry, Clayden, Greeves, Warren and Wothers and Chemistry of the Elements, Greenwood & Earnshaw), it seems they prefer the shorthand notation of drawing a single bond from the centre of each Cp ring.

I don't want to remove the image from the article, because I imagine many people like it and find it useful. But if you are like me and would prefer a slightly different diagram, comment here. I've created a new image which is how I think the line drawing would look if it were more accurate. I don't like it though, because it's messy! What do you all think?

Ben 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pauson v. Paulson

I have a copy of the Nature 1951, December 15, page 1309 in front of me. The authors names are T. J. Kealy and P. L. Pauson. NOT Paulson. Now, having said that subsequent papers are under the name Paulson, such as the retrospective report in Journal of Organometallic Chemistry. In that report he does not cite any literature, so we cannot see how he cited his Nature paper. He was a refugee and possibly was still deciding on how to transliterate his name. ChemAbs lists his name as PauLson on this paper, despite what I can see with my own eyes. Beats me.--Smokefoot 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

take back some of what I said - he always published under the name Pauson. CAS just messed up. The Duquesne Univ website use the L-free spelling of Pauson.--Smokefoot 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sublimation

Does anybody know what

Ferrocene, being readily sublimed, can be used to deposit certain kinds of fullerenes

means?? --Chris 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No clue here .. what about remove? Maybe a next input will be clearer, does not make sense now? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the fullerenes can be incorporated into a solid sample of ferrocene (eg present during a recrystallisation of ferrocene). When the ferrocene/fullerene sample is heated, ferrocene sublimes leaving the fullerene behind.--Artorius 10:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ferrocene is used, so I am told, to deposit multiwalled nanotubes. We probably remove this bit as it is peripheral, but apparently Fc gas decomposes to give the Fe that catalyzes the decomposition of toluene or other carbon donors in a flowing hot tube. The factoid is not particularly critical to the article, and possibly better for a buckytube article. --Smokefoot 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of March, 2008

The following image was removed/replaced in my editing. The content is highly specialized, but nonetheless these are factoids so I didnt want to unilaterally remove them from the main article.

[edit] GA review

I've signed up to review this. It may be a day or two before I get round to commenting in detail, so there's time for a final careful copy edit (:

Also the intro strikes me as not really fulfilling Wikipedia:Lead section Jimfbleak (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

and the big reaction schemes are substandard and do not reflect main-stream views of the important (i.e. widely used) rxns. I am going to insert new ones.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And some unreferenced bits, inc the whole ligand scaffold section Jimfbleak (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps the best thing is to give it up to a week to address the major problems above before I go through in detail. If they are fixed, I'll then give extra time if needed to sort any problems arising from the line by line assessment. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: