We have quite a lot of upvoted posts — 77 to be exact — using a website called ChemiDay as their reference material. However, from the looks of it, the website doesn't appear to be a reliable reference.

Suppose I have a question: "What are the products of the reaction between fluorine and ammonia?" Now, this is the related ChemiDay reaction. The entire webpage only: states the reaction and gives a very short description:

Ammonia react with fluorine

$$\ce{2NH3 + 6F2 → 6HF + 2NF3}$$

Ammonia react with fluorine to produce hydrogen fluoride and nitrogen(III) fluoride. The reaction takes place at the low temperature.

Most of the reactions in their database of ~17000 reactions (claimed) are like the one I linked to above. The question is: would we want the answer to this question be backed up by such a ChemiDay reference?

I instead would expect the answer to be backed by some reputed inorganic chemistry book (similar to March for organic), or at least a research paper - explaining the detailed experimental steps. For the above question, this research paper is apt. It clearly highlights major and minor products, and the different reactions at different yields of reactants.

I know we can't expect every answerer to be able to cite research papers or access good books, but does that mean we should sacrifice factual details and correctness with easy-to-lookup and (probably) wrong references?

So, should we officially disallow ChemiDay as a reference source (and leave a comment on such posts)? Or is there some other action we would want to take on such citations (for the past posts and for the future posts)?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wikipedia has a “better citation needed” for this kind of thing, IIRC. $\endgroup$ Jun 7, 2018 at 11:47
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @orthocresol Definitely $^\text{[citation needed]}$; not sure about $^\text{[better citation needed]}$. $\endgroup$
    – hBy2Py
    Jun 7, 2018 at 13:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @hBy2Py apparently, it’s “better source needed”, which makes a bit more sense: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Better_source $\endgroup$ Jun 11, 2018 at 8:25

1 Answer 1


No, it should not be considered a reliable source.

From a quick once-over, it appears to be trying to be, among other things, something of an "encyclopedia of reactions."

A true encyclopedia always cites its sources. As you note, citations therein are ... scarce.

So no, as it is, it's no good.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .