Talk:2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

Sources of TCDDs

Revision on the sources of TCDDs is misleading here and belongs to Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. TCDD as defined here, is a single compound 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and the sources given are common to many related compounds. The sole sources of pure TCDD are accidents (Seveso) or deliberate poisonings as described. Please check Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, and add the necessary sources there. Viinamakelainen (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Thanks for working on this article! It looks very good and the sourcing appears excellent. The lead, the most important part of the article, needs to be expanded to adequately summarize all the article content per WP:LEAD. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 23:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in chemistry, especially organic chemistry. The assessment is partly based on how other organic chemistry articles were assessed. Please feel free to request a second opinion if you feel that mine was not adequate.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   However, I'm not too sure about the sentence in the header saying that this is sometimes erroneously called dioxin; perhaps elaborate on that with perhaps a 3-5-sentence paragraph. Insufficient reason to say "no" here (this is not FA, though it's close to FA, in my opinion).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   (see above)

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:

   It being mainly about the compound's toxicity is in line with DUE, as most reliable coverage for the general public about it is about toxicity.

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):

   Perhaps add a picture of the free compound, though I know that's difficult to obtain. The Yuschenko image is particularly dramatic.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I do not see any outstanding issues with this article, and I like the prose.

Poorly written section on sugarcane

The article contains a section on 2,3,7,8-TCDD accumulation in sugarcane. This section is sourced but extremely poorly written. It's difficult to decipher its meaning and it is not up to the quality of the rest of the article. I'm on the fence about whether it should be removed or rewritten. On one hand it seems a bit odd to have an entire section devoted to sugarcane, but on the other it is at least nominally relevant information. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.23.129 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the commercial importance of sugarcane (and interest in biofuels) I think it's worth leaving in. It looks to me like it was translated or authored by a non-native English speaker, since the sentence construction was technically OK but difficult to read. I've re-written it and tried to preserve the meaning, further changes welcome.

It seemed to imply that dioxins were produced largely because chlorides were included in the sugarcane fertilisers, and that Cl is only included because it happens to be in the usual potassium sources. I'm not sure how accurate that is, since a certain amount of Cl will be needed by the plant in any case, but it might make a difference and might be in the relevant source - I don't have access that source except for the abstract. Pastychomper (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right. Sugarcane does not belong here, it could be shortly mentioned in Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, even if it is trivial as a source of dioxins. I am editing both entries shortly and plan to delete it here. Viinamakelainen (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)