Talk:Group 5 element

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)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Group 5 element/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Article looks like it's in reasonably good shape, though at a glance I do see a few things worth adressing. I will take a closer look and write up a more detailed review. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I am going to be quite busy for the next few weeks, so I might not respond swiftly to queries. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Just ping me when you have time to go through the article. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What looks good:

• lots of well-formatted citations to reliable sources, placed suitably in-line with the text.
• Nice pictures of the elements/their discoverers
• Clear description of some of the main physical/chemical properties

Detailed discussion of some things to improve:

Lead:

• Naming of the group is a little over-emphasized here (2nd paragraph could be moved). This may be worth including in the body of the article, but the history of the name of the group is a bit too detailed for the lead.

Moved to the history section. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Also the discussion of possible future synthesis of element 155 is probably not important enough for the lead (maybe to production section?).

Moved to production section. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lead is a bit too technical for a general audience, "d-block", "transition metal", "oxidation state", "electropositive", "coordination chemistry", "lanthanide contraction" (WP:EXPLAINLEAD) This is useful information to include somewhere in the article, but try to use especially simple terminology in the lead so people without a scientific background aren't totally lost.

I agree that “coordination chemistry”, “lanthanide contraction” and “electropositive” might seem a bit technical, but I think the others are fine. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarified these terms. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 08:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

History:

• section has some good info, but is overweighted with discussion of dubnium (more than half the prose).

Made some amendments, although majority of the history of the elements of this group is on dubnium. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Also there is a very heavy focus on the history of the names of the elements, it would be good to include some history of their properties or how they are used. (e.g. when were tantalum capacitors/niobium capacitors first used?, how long have these elements been used as microalloys in steel? How about the history of coltan mining? Maybe a mention of the use in Yttrium orthovanadate/laser mediums?) You could add these to applications as appropriate.

This might some time to implement. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Production:

• A technical point - ferrovanadium is an ingredient in steel alloys, but it's not a steel alloy itself.

Changed. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• The organization of this section is a bit confusing. I would think a natural organization might be ore production => purification => isolation of the element => ferrovanadium/ferroniobium, to keep things in a logical order.

The problem with this is that this is an overview article about many elements. I think that it would make more sense if we keep it to its constituent elements. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• The amount of mine production info for niobium is a little overdetailed for such a broad overview article. Maybe the top three producers, and just link to niobium page for more info.

Updated. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Misc:

• At a higher level, maybe rearrange the section order to occurrence => production => applications as well.

Rearranged. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Abbreviations: I would remove LBL/OSHA/NIOSH/REL as unnecessary WP:JARGON, since they are introduced but never actually used, the wikilinks already in place should be enough.

Removed occurrences of jargon. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Citations:

• inconsistent citation style for Greenwood and Enshaw 1997, (see WP:IBID) Whatever you choose, just be consistent.

Changed all occurrences of it to the template {{Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}} ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ref 62: bare link to pdf, link is broken.

Removed. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ref 75: Statista.com is not a reliable source.

Removed. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Pictures:

• the last four sections of the article could use a picture or two.

Added a picture for applications and biological occurrences, wasn’t able to add pictures to occurrence and toxicity and precautions. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ekeberg/Bohr/Han pictures are public domain in Sweden and presumably in the USA, but need to be tagged as public domain in the USA.

How do tag these pictures?¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The copyediting is reasonable.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead needs some simplification for the general audience, the organization of the sections needs some clarification/streamlining.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Nicely formatted citations.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The vast majority of the citations are good, but there's one unreliable source and a dead link that should be fixed.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Looks good.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Probably no copyright violations, but pictures need tagging.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Missing some info applications and history (see comments above)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Coverage goes into a bit too much detail on the names of the elements. Could be summarized more shortly and leave the detailed coverage to the individual articles.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The most contentious thing here is probably the naming of Dubnium, which is handled pretty fairly.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars I can see.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Missing tags.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Looks good

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   HOLD. The article's sourcing is good, there is some issues with organization and the relative weight of coverage, the article is a bit too technical, and there are a few minor things to fix. There's substantial useful information here, but it needs some tweaks to get to GA status. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I will be away over the next few days, so I might not be on Wikipedia. Is it ok if you extend the hold time? ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have added some comments. Check them out! ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Forbes72: I have addressed all of the issues that I can. Is it OK if you go through my comments as soon as possible? ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 12:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that all stable group 5 elements are silvery-blue refractory metals? Source: Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 956-958. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Praseodymium-141 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Group 5 element; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Praseodymium-141: Good article. AGF on hook citation Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of the uncited prose in the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addresing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Group 5 element

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

Result pending

The article has uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've started outlining the work that needs to be done with citation needed tags, moved a reference and commented out some info. I didn't see the GA concerns until this reassessment appeared under the GAR listings; for whatever reason it's listed under physics and not chemistry and as such doesn't appear on the Chemistry article alerts. Corrections should be straightforward as a lot of the info is going to come from the main article pages (Vanadium, Niobium, Tantalum, Dubnium) and should already be cited there. Reconrabbit 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like a lot of the information that should be in the parent articles (several of which like Vanadium compounds appeared to be copied over in part) is not there. I'll still work on this though. May be useful in maintaining quality of the parents (which would otherwise be subject to similar reassessments). Reconrabbit 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)