Talk:Copper(II) chloride/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Thank you for taking up the review! I am quite busy with my own review, so it may take me some time to address the comments. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• Link monoclinic (Monoclinic crystal system); anhydrous (anhydrous); dihydrate.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Is the anhydrous structure in the infobox needed?
  • It is there as an introductory image to the article; a lot of chemical articles have the structure as its lead image. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. AM

• There appears to be a ‘verify’ tag at the bottom of the infobox.
  • That is for verifying the Identifiers in the chembox and was automatically maintained by CheMoBot until 2018. I don't think the infobox must be verified to get GA, as even featured articles such as rhodocene have this. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. AM

1 Structure

• Link electron; antibonding (Antibonding molecular orbital); ligands.
  • Done.
• CuCl₂ – introduce the chemical with its full name (the text of the article does not follow on from the lead section).
  • Done. Left the dihydrate with its formula.
• Motif – ‘form’? (motif has several technical meanings in chemistry, I’m unclear the term is correct in this context).
  • Replaced with the word 'structure'.
• Imo the last paragraph does not belong in this section, as it is not about the structure.
  • The magnetism of a compound is very closely related to its structure so I would leave it in.

Understood. AM

• Consider linking copper.
  • Done.

2 Properties and reactions

• If possible, link complexes.
  • Linked to coordination complex.
• Link concentration; ion.
  • Done. Linked chloride ion to chloride.

• Link base; precipitates (Precipitation (chemistry), the links will need to be separated); fungicide.
  • Done. Rearranged to the sentence.

• Link oxidant (Oxidizing agent); melting point; reductant (Reducing agent).
  • Done.
• Convert 498 °C; 630 °C, and other temperatures in the text.
  • I'm not sure what you mean here, could you clarify? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clearer, e.g. {{convert|498|C}}, which produces '498 °C (928 °F)'. AM

Done.

• I’m not sure extrapolated is correct – ‘calculated’?
  • Extrapolated is correct in this case.

Ha, it's a graphical term only in my experience. AM

• Link dimer (Dimerization (chemistry)).
  • Done. Linked some others too.

3 Preparation

• Link exothermic; electrodes; foam (as the word has a technical meaning).
  • Done.

3.1 Natural occurrence

• Imo this subsection belongs in the properties section. Thoughts?
  • I think it should have its own section like the other chemistry GAs.

That's not quite what I meant. My suggestion was that this subsection stays intact with its own title, but is moved out of this section. It could for instance be a section by itself, or a subsection of Properties. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC).

I was suggesting that it be a section by itself. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Great, that will work. AM

Done.

• Cu mines – ‘copper mines’.
  • Changed.
• arising among Cu ore beds oxidation zones in arid climate (also known from some altered slags) – is hard to follow, and looks as if it needs to be copy edited to make the text clearer.
  • I changed the sentence and deleted some useless parts.

Uses

• is this section title needed? I don;t see why the two subsections that follow it can’t be raised to level 3.
  • Raised.
• Link Wacker process; alpha position (Locant#Greek_letter_locants).
  • Done.
• (DMF) is redundant, as the abbreviation does not reappear. Ditto (EC) below.
  • Removed.

• Link catalyst.
  • Done.
• Copper–chlorine cycle – has no capital.
  • Done.

• w/w – should be linked.
  • Done.
• also is redundant here.
  • Done.
• emit green-blue - ‘emit green-blue light’.
  • Done.
• Amend It is also used – presumably to ‘Copper(II) chloride is used’ (also is redundant here).
  • Done.

5 Safety and biological impact

• Link ppm (Parts-per notation); blood pressure; chromosomal aberrations (Chromosome abnormality); mitotic (Mitosis); genotoxicity; denitrifying bacteria.
  • Done.

6 Notes

• I’m unclear about why the note is needed.
  • Melting points are usually determined experimentally, not extrapolated. To account for this, the note was added. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clearer. See MOS:CIRCULAR for why the link may be useful, but is to be avoided. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the note was removed, as I think it isn't useful enough to stay. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

7 References

Spot checks seems fine.

• Ref 4 / 5 / 13 / 15 require page numbers for the text to be verified.
  • Done.
• Ref 7 (Brustolon) has an incorrect author.
  • Fixed.
• Ref 17 should read ‘pp. 220-223’.
  • Done.
• Ref 20 (Morris et al) has an incorrect link.
  • Fixed.
• Refs 21 to 24 need a full citation.
  • Done.
• N What makes you think Ref 30 (Clark) is a reliable source?

8/9 Further reading / External links

• (Not GA) There seems a lot here. Bearing in mind that these sections should really only lead to accurate, on-topic additional information that is not included in the article’s text, the lists should be checked, and any inappropriate sources removed.
• According to the essay Wikipedia:Further reading, the list should be bulleted.
  • Done.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 30 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing

Apart from one slightly questionable source in the References section, everything now looks good, so I'm passing the article. Great work, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.