Template:Did you know nominations/Trixylyl phosphate
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Overall: 
The lead fails to mention the crucial fact that TXP is a mixture of many (how many?) different compounds, although this is mentioned obliquely in the Synthesis section ("In practise this produces a range of products"). Synthesis is unsourced, as are claims of widespread use and poor safety. Overall this is interesting and promising, and I love seeing chemistry on the Main Page, but the article needs substantial fleshing out and additional references. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Schwede66 talk 22:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Trixylyl phosphate
- ... that trixylyl phosphate used to be used as a flame retardant for acetate plastics and PVC, but is now banned or restricted by several jurisdictions and requires authorization to be used in the EU? Source: https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.042.419
- Reviewed:
Created by 8UB3RG1N3 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Trixylyl phosphate; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Cursory review:
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Article is much too short at just over 700 characters readable prose.
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - Unsourced apart from the specific claim of neuropathy.
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Hook not supported by references. A source is given here in the nomination, but it's not in the actual article.
- Interesting:
- Other problems: - Not boldlinked. Too vague: "used to be used"—when? When was it banned? What sort of authorization is required?
| QPQ: None required. |
The lead fails to mention the crucial fact that TXP is a mixture of many (how many?) different compounds, although this is mentioned obliquely in the Synthesis section ("In practise this produces a range of products"). Synthesis is unsourced, as are claims of widespread use and poor safety. Overall this is interesting and promising, and I love seeing chemistry on the Main Page, but the article needs substantial fleshing out and additional references. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)