This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theTin(II) chloride article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Tin(II) chloride was one of theNatural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project ofWikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofchemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit theproject page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
According to episode 2.15 ofHouse M.D., "When I was a kid, my dad was stationed at a marine base in Egypt. We were in the middle of nowhere and there was absolutely nothing for a kid to do except look for a mummy's tomb.... I never actually did find a mummy, but I did learn a fair amount about the ancient Egyptians. For example, they discovered that stannous chloride is not only great for toughening ruby glass, but if it's mixed with gold, it turns bright purple." Any of this accurate?139.84.48.24915:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's certainly some truth in it; from memory I think it may be used to make "Purple of Cassius" (see[1]). We should probably look up some more authoritative sources on this and add it in. It may be relevant toGold(III) chloride as well.Walkerma17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the following text from theUses section: "This very reaction between stannous chloride and gold was used in episode #215:Clueless ofHouse to affirm gold poisoning.[citation needed]". The reference to that episode ofHouse in thePopular Culture section is more than enough: it doesn't belong inUses too. --EmmetCaulfield (talk)15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Stannous Chloride is in fact used as an indicator for gold and PGMs in aqueous solutions. Many hobbyists are using it. I added its use in the article.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySalut151 (talk •contribs)17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a part ofWikiProject Good Articles' Sweeps process, we are reviewing all older GAs to see if they still meet the existingGood Article criteria. This article was promoted to GA onDecember 9, 2005 byWalkerma. Unfortunately, it appears that only the{{GA}} tag was added to the talk page as I am unable to find evidence that a full review was conducted.
Here is how the article matches up against the currentGA criteria:
The article complies with themanual of style, but the prose is poor. I find it to be too technical, and not very helpful to a reader without an extensive science or chemistry background. The chemical properties section really doesn't have a very good opening or summary itself, and goes right into the details, with heavy dependence on equations.
I am going to pass this on the verifiability criterion due to its inline citations & evidence of additional general references. I don't see any evidence ofWP:OR, although it would be much better if inline citations were used over the general references -- that way, it would be much more clear where information is coming from, and easier to verify specific claims. I don't think the article would pass afeatured article review with this, but I think it's acceptable for GA.
It isbroad in its coverage.
a(major aspects): b(focused):
The article doesn't appear complete. Most sections are very short, and more work is needed to organize the information and improve its readability and organization. Thelead section is also too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article. Most individual sections don't have very good introductions themselves, and jump right into technical details, which would tend to scare off inexperienced readers. There's no information in here about hazards or safety precautions. There's nothing in the article about its discovery.
The images are tagged appropriately, though some of them are sized too large. The images overall don't connect well with text in the article; instead, they appear to have been placed in the article as a substitute for providing good text, instead of as a complement to a good, well-written section.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Mostly due to criteria #1 and #3, as well as partially #6 (though the image issue mentioned has probably more to do with prose or completeness), I don't think the article meets theGA criteria. I am also choosing todelist due to the fact that there has not been a proper GA review done in the past, and instead, it appears that the GA tag was simply added with no comments (or even an edit summary). Once the article is improved, it can be renominated atWP:GAN to be relisted.Dr. Cash (talk)15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b(MoS):
