Jump to content

Talk:Cerium/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 16:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The nominator has withdrawn from the GA assessment, so I had no choice but to ✗ Fail this nomination. Anyone with significant contributions to this article may restart the review from the place where it ended. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. No questions wrt spelling and grammar, but the text needs to be a bit less technical as we are writing for the general audience. For example, there are a lot of unfamiliar signs on the phase diagram (cF4, cI2, oC4 etc.) which need explanation (just like the α prime and α bis forms of cerium at high pressures and relatively low temperatures); in Cerium (IV) complexes, bidentate might need explanation. Make other such changes as you may see fit.
Will do later. 141Pr {contribs} 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cerium nitrates also form 4:3 and 1:1 complexes with 18-crown-6 (the ratio referring to that between cerium and the crown ether). -> you mean nitrate instead of cerium?

 Done 141Pr {contribs} 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cerium was the first of the lanthanides to be discovered, in Bastnäs, Sweden, by Jöns Jakob Berzelius and Wilhelm Hisinger in 1803, and independently by Martin Heinrich Klaproth in Germany in the same year. - I think it would be better to split the sentence in two - first about the early discovery of cerium; the other about the people who discovered it.

 Done 141Pr {contribs} 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. In extreme cases, cerium(IV) can form its own minerals separated from the other rare-earth elements, such as cerianite (Ce,Th)O

2(correctly named cerianite-(Ce)). - too many refs, too weirdly placed refs... Otherwise seems pretty OK

I have amended that bit, hopefully it looks a bit less misplaced. 141Pr {contribs} 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. For infobox cerium, if possible, I would format the first two refs (atomic weight and ionisation energies) to be consistent with the rest of the article; also, it is strange that you are using two different editions of CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, one of which is patently out-of-date and the other probably so. There is easy access on the internet to the 97th ed (2016) (Template:RubberBible97th) or you can grab a newer one at a good scientific library, particularly since you declare to be living in the UK. If you need to cite the data, I think it would be better to do so to as newer the compilations of data as possible. I can help you out with the access if you need it.

You may also want to consult the newer Holleman and Wiberg edition (103 ed., 2017), to which you may have access via the Wikipedia Library (De Gruyter), but this one is only in German.

I'll try. 141Pr {contribs} 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to oldid 1168714074 for my analysis of refs.

NUBASE2016 can be easily updated to NUBASE2020, as is already the case in the infobox. Refs 13, 45, 48, 60 and 65 need more data to be filled in. Ref 52 would benefit from pointing the page where the info is located and you should probably merge it with ref 57; Ref 53 needs additional data (ISBN 0-87171-644-5). Merge refs 66 and 70.

Remove ref 50 as it only gets you to the general page of mindat.org. If you want to retain ref 51, change it to http://cnmnc.units.it and find the relevant information supporting the sentence about cerianite. Still, I don't see the point of retaining it because there are already so many refs there. You can probably find some better ones as well if you want. I don't get why the article "Rare Earth Elements Recovery from Waste Fluorescent Lamps: A Review" is in an invisible comment - either cite it somewhere if relevant or remove it.

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I noted all places which I believe should be cited with citation needed tags (just a couple of passages). The quality of sources is good, so this is almost a pass.
2c. it contains no original research. Once the cn tags are replaced with refs, or the relevant text is removed, it will be a pass.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. The article doesn't appear to have such issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Well, this is something I have most questions about. There are some elements (like history) which are reasonably broadly covered (probably even to the degree of it being comprehensive), but some stuff IMHO is lacking. I compared to what is supposed to be the gold standard of our articles, namely caesium, niobium and yttrium (the latter is the closest we have to cerium), and I know we are at the GA not FA stage, but we should strive for FA at the end of the day, right? I won't be an asshole if you just write one or two sentences instead of whole paragraphs (that's GA, after all), but I will definitely be happy with comprehensive descriptions.

Basically I'd expect as a reader to get the following info from an encyclopedia describing a chemical element: (cf. Britannica entry for cerium)

  1. What is the pure and commercially sold form of element, and why does commercial-grade element differ from purest form, if it does? Status: we only describe the pure form.
  2. How do we prepare the commercial-grade cerium we can buy from merchants (or maybe it's not that important as CeO2, for example)? Status: we have procedures describing how to get to CeO2, so we should make it clear that the pure metal is probably not as important.
  3. Because unlike gold, it's a metal which doesn't really exist alone in the earth's crust: how does it get mined, which minerals generally get mined in the world if a company wants to profit from cerium extraction (or maybe it's only separated from remnants of other minerals, is retrieved from waste, or maybe cerium alone isn't attractive enough and they extract the whole palette of rare earths, as it appears to be the case...?), how much of that do we mine and where are the principal areas where cerium minerals get extracted, and, if in a different place, purified? Also, it would be good if we knew more or less the breakdown of where cerium goes (how much goes to steel, how much to catalytic converters etc.) Status: we have a historical desription of how cerium got discovered and the principal minerals from which we extract cerium, but nothing more. We don't need to be too detailed, because some of the info is already available in the mineral articles, but I think we have to mention it.
  4. Maybe there's a stock exchange trading cerium, like there is for copper, lead or other metals? If so, how much does it cost per tonne? (A minor question, so I won't be upset if there is nothing you can find.)
  5. What compounds does it create and how does it react? Well, we have just about enough info for that, though adding a sentence or two won't hurt.
    1. Maybe there are some alloys that it can create and are commercially useful? I saw a lot of technical information in this quite old publication, but it says little of what is useful in industry. There is some info in the article already, in the section "Applications", but let me know if you find anything more.
  6. Where is it used? You may want to see if there are any more applications than those already mentioned. Niche uses may be easily placed within "other uses" category.
  7. Hazardous/biological role? This section is generally fine, but the sentence about the bacterium needing cerium as a cofactor for its proteins is unnecessarily mentioned twice.
  8. How it got discovered? This section is pretty fine as well, but it only stops at the stage of purifying ceria (CeO2), and we also need pure Ce metal.

There has been a lot of literature published on rare earths lately and probably on cerium specifically, at least as it appears from the internet query into pdfs of books I made yesterday. I can help you with finding sources and also will suggest a couple to include a bit later, both from these and from Google Scholar.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The size is OK. There are a couple of topics I think we need to add/expand, but unless you are going to expand the article x3 or so, it should be OK. The article stays focused on the topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No problems with that.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No problems with that, either.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Generally OK. The image in the infobox uses CC 3.0 Unported license, not 1.0 license as provided - a minor detail that may need change. File:Cerium phase diagram.jpg will definitely benefit from converting to svg, if you know how to do just that - it will also be good if you provided info about the critical temperature and junctions in the phase diagram, if you can find this info in the literature.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Add alt captions to each image whenever appropriate (accessibility).
 Done 141Pr {contribs} 08:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I corrected the alt descriptions somewhat but that's a pass. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.

BTW, I have another GA review to finish, so I might not spend much time on this for now. 141Pr {contribs} 14:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, and keep up your work on holmium. I also don't have much time lately, but you will see my remarks when I'm ready. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Praseodymium-141, my review is ready. I put this GA nomination on hold pending improvements to the article. Because you are busy with other reviews, don't rush here yet, I'd just ask you to go through the review in a reasonable time, when you are done with your other duties. I have proposed some articles and books that may further enhance the article, and it would be a big bonus if you incorporated the material I compiled. Some of these articles may improve other rare earth metal entries, so you may want to use them there as well. Obviously, if you want to make your own research and find a couple of scholarly works I didn't mention, go ahead and do so. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Szmenderowiecki: I'm very busy in real life, is it ok if I pass this reivew to other WP:ELEM editors? I've already requested in the project talk page. 141Pr {contribs} 10:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll make the formal steps for that in a couple of hours. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'm too busy in real life. You review was great. (keep this up!) 😅 141Pr {contribs} 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for consideration

[edit]

Journals

[edit]

In medical fields, I tried to select review articles, but still pay particular attention to WP:MEDRS (not that the article currently violates it).

Praseodymium-141 Re this removal, I think any of the three sources could cover it well: [1] [2] [3]. The Jakupec book should cover the part about bones. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have readded the part and referenced it. 141Pr {contribs} 09:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Books

[edit]
The wikilibrary doesn't seem to have this book. Where do I find it? 141Pr {contribs} 16:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link. If you still cant access it, I'll send it to you by email. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jakupec, M. A.; Unfried, P.; Keppler, B. K. (2005). Pharmacological properties of cerium compunds. Vol. 153. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 101–111. doi:10.1007/s10254-004-0024-6. ISBN 978-3-540-24012-9. Retrieved 2023-08-05. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) - more about cerium in medical applications
  • Scirè, Salvatore; Palmisano, Leonardo, eds. (2020). Cerium Oxide (CeO2): synthesis, properties and applications. Metal oxides series. Amsterdam Oxford Cambridge: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-12-815661-2. - a whole book dedicated to cerium and cerium oxide, but not available at all on the internet (neither my uni nor Wikimedia give access)
  • Basu, Basudeb; Banerjee, Bubun, eds. (2023-05-04). Rare Earth Elements. De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-078808-2. - a couple of chapters in the end dedicated to cerium compounds, e.g. CAN. Available through the Wikipedia Library.
  • Spellman, Frank R. (2023). The science of rare earth elements: concepts and applications (First edition ed.). Boca Raton London New York: CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-003-35081-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) - this one has a safety profile and handling instructions on pp. 104-106; there is also a moderately useful image of rare earth metals being used in car manufacturing.
  • Pöttgen, Rainer; Jüstel, Thomas; Strassert, Cristian A. (2020). Rare earth chemistry. De Gruyter STEM. Berlin Boston: De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-065360-1. - they have a very good history introduction, otherwise may br worth reading for your other articles. Available through the Wikipedia Library.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cerium/GA3&oldid=1171110788"