Talk:Potassium iodide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal Potassium iodide is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
Core	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Potassium iodide was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: March 14, 2007

I would be very surprised if, as claimed in this A-class article, HI were a better reducing agent than I^-.--Smokefoot 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the part about the iodide being oxidized more quickly in acid is due to the fact that

• The oxidation of iodide to iodine by oxygen (and not to an oxyanion of iodine) requires acid
• And HI has a positive enthalpy of formation and will decompose exothermically to form iodine and hydrogen gas.

The confusion probably comes from HI being used with red phosphorus to reduce ephedrine to methamphetamine. --71.227.190.111 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Information that potassium iodide can be useful in case of "problems" on nuclear reactor only and "cannot protect against other causes of radiation poisoning" is not correct. Fallout after nuclear explosion contains large amount of iodine isotopes. --Varnav 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Suppliers

I would like to have a discussion about the usefulness of chemical suppliers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.188.227.119

At KI, I have the feeling, that the list of suppliers is not neutral.

Best regards

[edit] Delisted GA

This article has been removed from the GA list due to lack of inline citations. Tarret 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was renominated for GA status on 3/17/2007. I looked at it again, but I cannot list as it still fails the citation criteria. There are also several ?s in the infobox as well. Dr. Cash 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To explain my reasons for not listing this as a good article, again, it's primarily citations. There are several statements in the article that need to be cited. For example:

• "Potassium iodide is used in photography, in the preparation of silver(I) iodide for high speed photographic film:" This statement not only lacks a citation, but also leads directly into the equation without adequate explanation. It's awkward. A separate sentence (at least) should introduce the equation.
• "In medical use, it can also serve as an antiseptic for people suffering from sore throat." Definitely needs referencing - the amount of supposed medical information on wikipedia that's unverified is ridiculous. "The dose is 0.5g-1.0g in 100mL, with the accompany of iodine (0.5g-1.0g in 100mL)." Specific dose information also needs a reference.
• "KI is also used as a fluorescence quenching agent in biomedical research because of collisional quenching by its iodide ion."
• "In aqueous solution with elemental iodine, it acts as a gold etchant and will attack and dissolve gold surfaces."
• The entire 'radiation protection' section is weakly referenced. The one reference at the end of the section, linking to ki4u.com, I'm not sure I'd exactly call, "reliable." The table in this section is a bit awkward, too. Not sure how this fits into the article.
• 'Precautions' has no citations.

In addition to citation, the infobox also lacks information, specifically with reference to the properties and structure sections. I don't think ?s in this table are really acceptable for articles of WP:GA status. These items should either have valid information, or "n/a" for not applicable.

Fix these things, and I think it would be a GA. But I cannot support as a GA without these issues fixed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Derek, thanks for these recommendations. In my perception these apply to WP:FA status instead of WP:GA status. When this article be brought up to Featured status, these certainly should be taken into account. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Slightly bitter"?

I remember it as foully nasty. Tweeq (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)