Jump to content

Talk:Group 12 element/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A few ideas

  • Zn is similar with Mg.
  • "not transition elements as the d-shell is full." I thought that both including and excluding from TM is common. MAYBE this question is worth a separate subsection.
  • Make the table in Physical illustration to the text, not the text (just write something)
  • Once again MAYBE an explanation why Hg is liquid will be helpful.
  • History is very short. What I want it to be is Group 3 element#History (of course I wrote it myself), but it's nothing but a point of view. (The article may be helpful at all, you may also check noble gases)
  • Maybe you could note that group 12 was IIB before? Earlier, didn't anyone try to characterize the similarity between the elements (triels or something)?
  • How much Cd and Hg has been made/is made per year?
  • Applications may be enlarged. Aren't there uses for Hg?
  • I ain't sure, but isn't there some microscopic amount of Cd and Hg in humans? Just if there's some of any lanthanide (but Pm), there may be also Cd/Hg traces.
  • "Like in most other d-block groups the abundance in Earth's crust decreases with higher atomic number, and so the zinc is with 65 parts per million (ppm) the most abundant in the group while cadmium with 0.1 ppm and mercury with 0.040 ppm are orders of magnitude less abundant." Hmmm, these numbers say nothing to almost anyone. SO Zn is common, Hg is among rarest of all (right?), and Cd doesn't seem to be very common as well.
  • "While mercury and zinc minerals are found in large enough quantities to be mined, cadmium is too similar to zinc and therefore is always present in small quantities in zinc ores." Wait a minute, Cd is more common than Hg. I guess it's because Cd is similar with Zn, and Hg is separate from them. If I'm right, this'll have to be included.

There may be more, that's what I found after reading this once. All of the above is only my opinion--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Group 12 element/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's start

I am starting review. Additional comments are welcome! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the article twice before starting the review process. The article is very well written! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First read comments

First things to look for
Basic problems Comment
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability ☒N No problem!
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}} ☒N No major problem!
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars ☒N No!
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ☒N No problem

First look assessment: checkY Ok! There is not any "basic problem" in the article, and we can start the review in detail now.

Dead refs

There are three dead refs in the article. That means, the pages used in reference don't exist now and resulting an HTTP 404 error (page not found). Fix these three references: reference 14, 54, 106! Let me know if you have any question!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Template

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. This is one of best written articles I have ever read in Wikipedia. The prose is completely clear and concise. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The article follows MoS guidelines! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
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. There is no problem with sources. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
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). True! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
2c. it contains no original research. True, there is not any original research! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes, the article addresses main aspects of the topic!
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Absolutely! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes, no problem in WP:NPOV. It represents viewpoints fairly! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message)
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I have not seen any recent edit war problem. Pass here too! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
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. Images are properly tagged.. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. True! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Overall assessment. I have read this article multiple times, and I feel currently this is a good article based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Congratulations editors! You have done a great team work! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Common structural properties

The elements 30Zn, 48Cd. 80Hg, and and 112Cn all have the common feature of being the last element of a 10 element (2 + 4 + 4 = 10) so called transition metal series which then is extended by a 6 element (2 + 4 = 6) series to the end of the IUPAC table. This implies the end of the creation of a 10 element structural feature of the atomic nucleus. And this structural feature is related to the fact that it is concerned with the minimum addition of 10 deuterons plus some extra neutrons to the nucleus, with each of the incremental elements being changed by the addition of a single deuteron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFPM (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 November 2012 UTC

Moved from GA review page --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The range of the number of excess neutrons required for the stability of the elements of this group is from 4 to 10 for 30Zn, from 10 to 20 for 48Cd, and from 36 to 44 for 80Hg, with the central stability isotope of 80Hg lying on the isotope stability line with the formula A = 3Z - 40 = EE80Hg200, with 23% constituency. There are no stable isotopes of 112Cn, probably due to a high probability of alpha particle emission instability. However a trend line related to a minimum of instability would probably be that involving the existence of a 4n number of extra neutrons and thus being in the range of A = 3Z -40 (at EE112Cn288 with 64 extra neutrons) or A = 3Z - 44 (at EE112Cn292 with 68 extra neutrons). The reported data is only for isotopes up to EO112Cn285 with 61 extra neutrons, and may indicate the inability of the structure to accumulate extra neutrons beyond a maximum number.WFPM (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Group 3 element which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Group 12 element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Group 12 element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Group_12_element/Archive_1&oldid=1240495210"