Talk:Hexachlorophosphazene

Bonding image

The image looks as if there is a conjugated ring encompassing the whole molecule as in borazine. I think this is wrong, the electron densities indicate 3 centre island bonds - i.e. no conjugation around the ring.Axiosaurus (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely true; I have expanded the Structure section and added further clarifying figures for a more accurate description of bonding (mostly ionic and not delocalised aromatic).

--A. Ts. Galenitis (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hexachlorophosphazene/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best! :^)

Okay, time to do my best. jp×g 20:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio / POV / original research / stability

• Earwig's checker found absolutely nothing, and a spotcheck of googling various phrases from the article similarly found nothing. No copyvio to be found.
• There is nothing resembling an opinion in the article at all. No POV issues.
• No original research that I could find; everything seems to be backed up by sources (with a few exceptions where statements aren't cited inline).
• No sort of controversy whatsoever seems to be going on with this article, and the current version is quite stable.

Prose / MoS

• The lead doesn't talk about any of the things it's used for. It should at least mention the applications of polychlorophosphazenes and hexalkylphosphazenes.

• Fixed with a great summary!

• The P3N3 ring nearly planar in hexachlorophosphazene: should be "is nearly planar in", yes?

• Expanded and clarified.

• hexachlorotriphosphazene: The article mentions this name a few times, in a way that seems to be referring to the subject. However, this is different from the article name, and it isn't explained the first time it's mentioned. I would recommend just saying "hexachlorophosphazene" in the article if there isn't a good reason to bring up the "tri".

• Explained as the trimer, all other usage now consistent.

• which imply delocalization and perhaps even aromaticity: should be more clear that it doesn't imply aromaticity. I would say something like "which, in many such molecules, imply delocalization or even aromaticity" (if indeed other cyclophosphazenes are aromatic; I don't know for sure, and the article on them is a redlink). Alternately, "which were thought to imply delocalization and perhaps even aromaticity" may work.

• Wonderful.

• (a) steric effects; and (b) the ability of the I don't know about this (a) and (b) stuff. This should be written some other way.

• Outstanding.

Referencing

• Some paragraphs do not have citations in them, and some statements at the end of paragraphs are uncited. Specifically, the first paragraph of §Structure, both paragraphs in §Modern bonding models, the second paragraph in §Polymerisation: "Inorganic rubber" and the final paragraph in §Other reactions.

• Everything is now cited. Gorgeous.

• In the "Further Reading" section, it seems like there are lots of things that could be relevant to the article (and used to cite some statements in it). I think it'd be nice for some of those to be used for inline citations.

• Another source, many more inlines. Great!

Focus / scope

• Article stays on topic and discusses hexachlorophosphazene. It does not discuss other stuff.

Coverage / completeness

• The main thing that jumps out to me is that the article does not say much about what this chemical is good for, or what people have used it for: just that it is used in the creation of some fireproofing materials and some polymeric derivatives. But what are the polymeric derivatives good for? Similarly, there are some reactions it's used for, but nothing about why someone might do those reactions.

• We've learned about both its applications and its derivatives, summarily in the lead and comprehensively elsewhere. Majestic!

• It might be prudent to have separate subsection (or two, since the hexalkoxyphosphazenes and the polyphosphazenes are different products) on the applications of the chemical. It might also be prudent to just rename the "Reactions" section "Reactions and applications".

• Brilliant! A new section, and good new content to go with it.

• early bonding models, modern calculations: It might be nice to know when these happened; are we talking 1903 or 2003?

• From the 1950s, and modern calculations in the 1980s: so they were wearing skinny ties both times around. Great!

• The original synthesis: It might be nice to know when was the compound originally synthesized, and by whomst. And, perhaps, whymst they synthesized it (if this is detailed in the source).

• 1834, and later in 1924! Wow!

• The section on Lewis basicity is only a single sentence. However, in Heston 2005, it says that the Lewis acid adduct causes hexachlorophosphazene to assume a slight chair configuration. This might be nice to include (or additional information from the paper).

• Wonderfully expanded!

Media

• All media are tagged with free licenses.
• The first image is confusing: it's right after a paragraph saying that early models posited delocalization, implying this is one of the original (disproven) structural diagrams— but it looks like it has the same bonds as the other diagrams later in the article. Is it supposed to be in the section below (Modern bonding models)? If it's supposed to be where it is, there should be a caption explaining what is going on.

• A great caption. Excellent!

Conclusion

• @A. Ts. Galenitis: This is a very well-written article, and I am glad to have read it. The illustrations are very nice. I look forward to seeing it make peer review or FA, and to passing it as a GA once some minor problems are addressed. jp×g 22:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear @JPxG: thank you very much for your encouraging words for the first Wikipedia article in which I invested significant time. The comments were very helpful and I tried to address many of them with a first major edit, planning to further improve the article over the next couple of days. Glad that the article proved enjoyable, and I will be happy to receive more comments during the editing process. A. Ts. Galenitis (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Great! Let me know by commenting here when you're done and I will take another look. jp×g 22:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello @JPxG:! I think I've finished the major changes in reply to the helpful points raised; do let me know of your thoughts and any other fixes suggested. Regards, A. Ts. Galenitis (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow! It's beautiful! Let's go over the stuff again. jp×g 18:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I am very happy to pass this article. Majestic! This would be great from anyone, but as a first GA nomination from someone with only 32 edits, it's amazing. Please write more – I will be looking forward for your next nomination! jp×g 19:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your work in reviewing the article, humbled by the nice comments. With hopes for a future cooperation, A. Ts. Galenitis (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Chemistry analysis

A fine article. Here are some opportunities for further improvement:

• how on earth did Wolher and co know that they had made (PNCl2)n? I guess that they recorded the mass spectrum?
• we need a photo of a sample of P3N3Cl6, ideally next to a labeled commercial bottle.
• claims of commercial apps would benefit frrom a photo of an item that is made from the polymer. Academics often crow about the utility of their work, so some evidence would be nice. What is the tonnage/year? BTW, within WP-Chem culture, patents usually dont count of proof of utility.
• methods for characterization would be helpful. Key would be 31P NMR spectroscopy but main vibrational bands might be nice.
• mechanism of formation would also be nice. Acyclic P2N or P3N2 etc intermediates would be cool.
• ... and for goodness sake, use uniform fonts in graphics!

--Smokefoot (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, what this person said, esp the part re: crowing jp×g 07:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Very good points Smokefoot and thank you for already working towards their coverage! I have added the suspected mechanism and some characterisation methods (do intervene if these are too in depth/need to follow a different style). Sorry for (my part of) the graphics, I initially made them for different purposes, will try to fix eventually. For the commercial applications there is quite a nice picture in G&N of some polyphosphazene components mass produced by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co, but obviously there are copyright issues, might find another photo. Regards, A. Ts. Galenitis (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)