Talk:Water–gas shift reaction

message: Is this an organic reaction or an inorganic reaction? The text says one thing--the category suggests another.
-I would say inorganic. - Brendio 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organic?

message: There is no source that lists Felice as the discoverer of the reaction.  I have a review paper by Ratnasamy et al. from Catalysis Reviews vol. 51 2009 that states the first official report of the WGS reaction was in 1888 by Mond, L. and Langer, C. in the form of a British Patent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.172.137 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some information could be retrieved from footnote 14 in Wikipedia article about Felice Fontana. Ekisbares (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery?

message: Hi, I have never heard the WGS reaction referred to as the Dussan reaction. If you do a scholarly search on google, science direct, A.C.S. or other reputable sites nothing comes up. Can some one inform me where this term came from, preferably with a reference? Thanks in advance.--El Mayimbe (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dussan Reaction???

message: I think much the most common spelling is "water gas", not hyphenated or a dash. It is a gas made from water, like coal gas is a gas made from coal. If the words are linked at all is would be a hyphen rather than a dash. The article has recently had its name changed to include a dash which I think is wrong. Thincat (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting; thanks. So what's the shift between? The reaction causes what to shift to/from what? Tony (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I replied to Tony. Whether the phrase "water gas shift reaction" ought strictly have a hyphen or dash depends on whether water gas is being used as a (hyphenated) noun phrase or whether there is a shift reaction involving a mixture of water and gas (dash). I may yet find out or I may give up. Maybe there is no clear answer. In any case the most common form seems to be "water gas shift reaction" and since this also neatly sidesteps such esoteric matters of historical chemistry (and edit wars!) I prefer the spaced out form. Thincat (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The reaction causes oxygen to shift from water to the gas, thereby producing hydrogen.  The gas needs to be something that can use additional oxygen, e.g. carbon monoxide. I have no opinion on the hyphen. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Definitely hyphen would be the most correct and illuminating punctuation.  Some books do it it that way, including 6 of first 10 google books hits, though as with many phrases familiar in their field, the hyphen does also often get dropped. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and add the hyphen, since it's about a shift reaction that makes or unmakes water gas, not about a shift between water and gas.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Reference 2 (stages) refers to a non-useful site.  An alternative site might be:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/97624049/Water-Gas-Shift-Reaction-Number-of-Stages.Thermbal (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect reference was replaced, and an additional reference was added.Thermbal (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Intro 
•	line 1: “describeds”
•	equation: maybe describe where these numbers and the equation come from
History
•	“The reaction is reversible, slightly exothermic, becoming less so with increasing temperature.” Becoming less reversible or less exothermic with increasing temperature?
•	“Research in this area continues to be active field in the present day” grammar issues
•	Broken link to “Hydrogen world”
•	Paragraph 3, line 1: “…and is becoming an important in both the political…”
•	Paragraph 3, last line: used “WGS” instead of “WGSR”
Applications
•	Industrial, first line, missing a leading noun. “? Is used in…”
•	Line 1: random ellipses?
•	Line 1-2: “It is often used in conjunction with steam reforming of methane or other hydrocarbons,[1]” Need a period at the end of sentence, not comma. Also, reword this sentence so it is clearer what “steam reforming of methane etc.” means. 
•	Line 2: what is the Fischer Tropsch Process?
•	Line 3-4: “The water-gas shift reaction may be an undesired side reaction in processes involving water and carbon monoxide, e.g. the rhodium-based Monsanto process. The iridium-based Cativa process uses less water, which suppresses this reaction.” This is a repeat of a sentence included in the History section already
•	Line 5: ”…equilibrium of this reaction is shows a significant…” grammar 
•	What are the Monsanto and Cativa processes?
•	“…are thermodynamically limited exit composition of 2-4% carbon monoxide.” What?
•	“…is employed produce…” (employed TO produce)
•	Paragraph 2, line 6, “prioir” = prior*
•	Edit superscripts and subscripts (H2O, oC, etc) throughout\
-Above edits suggested by GoBlue18
-----------------------------------------
Review from physorg_2013
Content:
The introductory section is generally appropriate for non-chemistry experts but the terms “thermodynamically favored” and “kinetically favored” might be unfamiliar to no-experts. They could either be parenthetically defined or linked to another Wikipedia page that explains what these terms mean. None of the sections are unnecessarily long and each is broken into appropriate subsections. As a single reaction, the topic doesn’t lend itself to discussing examples as much as applications and mechanism, but the page discusses good examples and appropriately considers the different mechanisms that have been proposed. The key terms and content are linked to other appropriate Wikipedia pages. One link (hydrogen world) is to a page that does not exist so the link should be either removed or another page to link to should be chosen (Wikipedia has a page on “world hydrogen energy conference,” which is the closest topic that arises from a single Google search). The last section also contains the sentence “Coupling the RWGS with the water electrolysis process, is will yield methane and oxygen,” which should probably read “coupling the RWGS with the water electrolysis process will yield methane and oxygen” unless there was an unfinished thought in it.
Figures:
The figures illustrate important concepts for the page but are very small and would be a lot more useful if they were large enough to see the text on them. The figure illustrating the two different mechanisms looks like it is very helpful in distinguishing the two mechanisms but again it needs to be bigger. 
References:
There are more than eight references and the list does include non-journal sources, but one of the references is incorrectly cited (Wikipedia is showing an error message instead of citation 2). The section on fuel cells has “(Ladebeck)” written at the end of sentences as if it is a reference but this name does not appear in the reference list. The High Temperature Shift Catalysts does the same thing with “(Newsome 1980).” These two sources need full citations in the reference section. 
Presentation:
Overall the page looks very good. My first suggestion for the presentation would be to make the three figures larger. Chemical formulas should also be fixed to use subscripts and the degree sign should be superscript.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physorg 2013 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2013 

message: I have this page on my watchlist so I have just seen the recent changes to the article. What an outstanding improvement. I can't make out who has done what, but anyway it has has worked out well and has been very successful. In the past there have sometimes been rather unhappy examples of Wikipedia editing being used for educational purposes. In this case it looks to me the article has become both informed and accessible. Thincat (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside comment 

message: "The pioneering period of the WGSR occurred between 1977 and 1984 after the discovery of metal carbonyls to catalyze the WGSR…"  Lot of papers were published, but zero technology came from this "pioneering period".  Thus, maybe it was not so pioneering? --Smokefoot (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your gesture is generous.  I recommend that you do 10% of what you are thinking of.  Incremental contributions are always best.  We aim for general information and we aim for readability.  Many details and even some rigor can be sacrificed or ignored.  Wikipedia has zero interest in competing with technical articles (WP:NOTJOURNAL) and it is against our goals to compete with textbooks (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK).  So if you can constrain yourself, a short section on the thermodynamics of the H2O/CO vs H2/CO2 equilibrium would be welcome.  Probably the greatest challenge is if you can constrain yourself.  Short sections on thermodynamics would also be welcome on Steam reforming, methanation, and Boudouard reaction.  What readers seek is the general insights into the effect of operating conditions on these fundamental equilibria.  The references should be to textbooks or tables  from say NIST.  Good luck,--Smokefoot (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "pioneering period of the WGSR"?

message: Substituted at 10:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment