Talk:Boron

Biological role

@Bon courage: Can you help!? Can you please review the Boron#Biological role and Boron#Pharmaceutical and biological applications section. I edited these sections the last few days, and I wanted to make sure that my edits are proper and improved Wikipedia content. Still, I found Boron#Pharmaceutical and biological applications section was not formatted very well, it should have been probably split by sections, but I didn't have an idea how do to that better. Maybe you have that idea? Thank you very much in advance! --12:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! The strongest health claims are sourced to PMID:29546541, which is a quality source (on-point review article in a reputable journal). Bon courage (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Chemically uncombined

@Porg656: The edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boron&diff=1180907397&oldid=1180881695 modified the meaning. It should have been "but chemically uncombined boron is not otherwise found" without commas, not "but, chemically uncombined, boron is not otherwise found". Would you please consider removing the commas as it was before!? --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Done Porg656 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited text throughout the article, including entire sections. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Boron

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Uncited text, including an entire section. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. When I checked I found two sections, #Boranes and #Organoboron chemistry without sources. However, both have "Main" or "See also" which is a place where there are probably a few sources. I think a post to WT:Chemistry is appropriate, plus perhaps a little tagging to make it clearer what the concerns are. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954, an article with GA status is required to have all the sources in the article. Otherwise, you could have an entirely unsourced article with lots of "Main" or "see also" links and none of the article's content actually verified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I posted to WT:Chemistry (the right Project, it seems they were not notified on the talk page), and it looks like @Plantsurfer, Preimage, and Smokefoot: are making edits. I will defer to them to respond to any concerns @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29 have. I have only done a few GA (both sides), they are not as bad as applying for tenure, but there are similarities. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Thanks for doing that. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for another review, or if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Some comments: The article looks pretty good to me. Some semi-random suggestions, including some snark.

• One fundamental question that seems not to be confronted for element articles is scope. Should "use" section catalogue the major uses of any compound of the element, or should it catalogue the uses of the element per se. If the latter, there are few apps to be listed for B because the element is not widely used.
• "recent" is used a few times. That word does not work in an encyclopedia.
• "has also been successfully used" -> "has also been used"
• Why show an image of Sassolite? It seems to be a rare mineral (WP:UNDUE). The image gives the false impression that borates are colored.
• Wikipedia editors, especially those less familiar with inorganic chemistry, seem to have a fixation on the possible roles of their element in human biology (see chromium, fluorine, silicon, bromine, boron, and some others). To me, these claims are usually supported by weak refs. Then we get fed this hyperbolic cub-scouting "On 5 September 2017, scientists reported that the Curiosity rover detected boron, an essential ingredient for life on Earth, on the planet Mars." Wow, "scientists" did that, really? What else do scientists do?
• Insufficient mention of sodium borohydride. From Kirk-Othmer's encyclopedia: "Sodium tetrahydroborate ... the most widely used boron hydride... Manufacturer ... Morton International Specialty Chemicals Group ... three plants, Oy Nokia Ab, Farbenfabrik Bayer A.G. ... Chemetall Gmbh..." That is six production facilities. It is used in bleaching pulp, I think.
• BNCT was listed as an app. I moved it. That theme has been pounded on for 50+ years and all sorts of boron researchers pray that it will allow them to justify their projects. But BNCT is not used, to best of my knowledge.
• MgB2 is mentioned a couple of times. Kinda speciallized, consolidate?
• mention of 20 Mule Team Borax: parochial US content?
• "Boron carbide is a ceramic material which is obtained by decomposing B2O3 with carbon in an electric furnace" You mean carbothermic? Decomposition is a vague term for a chemical reaction.
• "Boron is rare in the Universe and solar system due to trace formation in the Big Bang and in stars." seems like cyclic argument... it is rare because it is rare.

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)