Jump to content

Talk:Iron/GA1

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: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:41, 6 August 2016 (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. Overall in relatively good shape, with a few issues identified for correction.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead is excessive per WP:LEAD, clocking in at 5 paragraphs.
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. Generally appropriate, with a few deficiencies identified below.
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). Cosmetically, [1] is bare linked, and there are a couple of citations that appear to have deprecated "chapter" parameters.
2c. it contains no original research. No extensive OR detected, just a few uncited statements.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's program twigged on [2], but to me that looks like just an aggressive mirror. More investigation needed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Good, comprehensive discussion of iron.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Some coatrack-ish material identified.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Nothing identified as extensively non-neutral, just a few things here and there that should be cleaned up with appropriate citation.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Looks stable to me, but is semi-protected. Need confirmation that this is vandalism-protection rather than stopping any edit war.
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. Note that "File:Heme b.png" says it should be replaced with the .svg, but that's not a GA issue.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Really good mix.
7. Overall assessment. Pass per improvements.
Yes, I think ironmap.com is probably a mirror, since it even includes the signature bracketed citation numbers of Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the protection is indeed against otherwise persistent vandalism based on the log. Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First text read through

[edit]
  • Despite the lead length, I think it reads rather well. I think the supernovae/creation bit can be dropped, that is by removing sentences 5 and 6 in the first paragraph. Remind me to revisit this later.
Characteristics
[edit]
  • Phase diagram and allotropes "at very high pressures, some controversial experimental evidence exists for a phase β stable at very high pressures and temperatures" Redundant.
  • "Iron is of greatest importance when mixed with certain other metals and with carbon to form steels. There are many types of steel, all with different properties, and an understanding of the properties of the allotropes of iron is key to the manufacture of good quality steels.[14]" This seems out of place in this section. I expect we'll get to it later.
  • Is it just me, or are there two descriptions in this section of cooling and then heating phase changes? Mind you, I've never taken particularly advanced chemistry coursework, but it strikes me that we've got two discussions, going opposite directions, and not terribly clearly labeled as such.
  • isotopes I would have liked a wikilink to the two named meteorites.
  • The binding energy of Nickel-62 is referenced twice in this section.
  • Nucleosynthesis I swear I just saw Silicon Burning Process referenced and wikilinked in the previous section... I swear I just saw the decay from Nickel-56 to Cobalt-56 to Iron-56 discussed above, too...
  • Planetary occurrence Silicon fusion? Sounds suspiciously like the Silicon burning process yet again...
  • Stocks in use in society Does this really need a whole subsection for one factoid?

So far, it's looking like a lot of independent constituent articles have been summarized without a lot of harmonization and determining which is the best place for an individual topic, leading to repetition. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address these comments. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry and compounds
[edit]
  • +2 and +3 are the most common oxidation states... twice.
  • Coordination compounds Seems like a lot of detail on Prussian Blue, even though it is admittedly pretty cool.
  • Organometallic compounds dppf seems like it should be entirely written out, to be consistent with the rest of the wikilinks in this section.
  • This section is losing me a bit (again, never taken physical chemistry or the like) about why all these different things are important, and why some like Ferrocene get so much space. Not saying it's wrong, just that it's not obvious to a non-chemist why this is proportioned the way it is.
    • I have tried to add some context in an introductory paragraph regarding why these properties of iron are important. Now this is the section where I'm writing about something I know rather well, so please tell me if you think further links or explanations are necessary. I'd like it to benefit the average reader, but I may not be able to judge that well enough in this section. Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Already there are places (e.g. geometry of iron coordination compounds, explanation and examples of the high- and low-spin complexes) where I could have gone into further detail, but decided not to, as I felt it would be overwhelming and not really right for such a popular article that could be said to be "claimed" by various fields, of which chemistry is just one. I can add more of this if you disagree, of course. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Eiland and/or Pepinsky be wikilinked? Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address these comments. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History
[edit]

... And that's all for right now. More tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production of metallic iron
[edit]
  • Industrial routes "The production of iron or steel is a process consisting of two main stages, unless the desired product is cast iron." The exception could be handled more gracefully. Might need a few more words, but the current bit leaves me unsure (without reading elsewhere) whether pig iron and cast iron are the same thing or not.
    • Since cast iron is also produced from pig iron, I think we can afford to simplify this in the beginning. Hence it now reads "The production of iron or steel is a process consisting of two main stages. In the first stage pig iron is produced in a blast furnace. Alternatively, it may be directly reduced. In the second stage, pig iron is converted to wrought iron, steel, or cast iron." Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blast furnace processing "about 4 tons per ton of iron," Since when do we weigh air? Over what period of time is this massive blast of air added?
  • On the upside, the chemical transitions in this section are well-documented and understandable to someone with only a basic college-level chemistry background.
  • Direct iron reduction The environmental advantage vs. blast furnace processing is stated, but neither described nor discussed. I'm guessing the natural gas is more efficient?
  • Laboratory methods How does the second method differ from direct iron reduction? It sounds the same.

Overall, the prose in this section is pretty straightforward, but I still see a little redundancy and some other items are unclear to the layman (i.e., me). Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applications
[edit]
  • Metallurgical The table, chart, and image all clustered near the top of the section make the first part look overly busy. Is there a better spacing for any of these?
  • "The main disadvantage of iron and steel is that pure iron, and most of its alloys, suffer badly from rust if not protected in some way, a cost amounting to over 1% of the world's economy." per annum? Could use a citation for that fact.
    • I have a citation for this, but it doesn't say "per annum" (though this seems likely). It just says "The economic importance of rusting can scarcely be overestimated. Although precision is impossible, it is likely that the cost of corrosion is over 1% of the world's economy." Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iron compounds "Although its metallurgical role is dominant in terms of amounts, iron compounds are pervasive in industry as well being used in many niche uses." I'm not sure I understand what this means.
  • "It can also be dissolved in alcohol to form tincture of iron." And what is that useful or why should a reader care? A wikilink would be appropriate.
  • "These are its main uses." Since we then switch to a different subtopic, that sentence seems redundant--I would expect minor uses to follow, not the uses of another material.

Seems to be pretty consistent with previous sections' comments. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biological role
[edit]
  • "the color of blood is due to the hemoglobin" due to hemoglobin or due to its hemoglobin sound more straightforward.
  • "As illustrated by hemoglobin, iron is often bound to cofactors, e.g. in hemes." Illustrated? What's a cofactor and why does the reader care? What does a cofactor contribute to iron in biology?
  • "Influential theories of evolution have invoked a role for iron sulfides in the iron-sulfur world theory." Never heard of this before, but this isn't my field. Following the Wikilink takes me to an unassessed article. Is this really influential (and hence belongs here) or is this some fringe idea hanging this here as a coatrack?
    • Greenwood and Earnshaw don't mention this in their overview of the chemical and biological roles of iron (the source in the bibliography), while they mention everything else in the paragraph, so it is probably not so important. Removed. Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a level that remains remarkably constant despite only about one milligram of iron being absorbed each day." That's because the human body recycles its hemoglobin (which I know because this now IS my field...) and might be something cool to point out and/or drop the discussion of the level stability.
  • Bioinorganic compounds The second paragraph here is fascinating to read, but almost entirely uncited.
  • "This results in a movement of all the protein chains that results in..." two results? Lose one.
  • "Thus, while hemoglobin is almost saturated with oxygen in the high partial pressures of oxygen found in the lungs, its affinity for oxygen is much longer than myoglobin in the low partial pressures of oxygen found in muscle tissue, resulting in oxygen transfer." I think "longer" should be "lower"?
  • "Carbon monoxide and phosphorus trifluoride are poisonous to humans because they bind to hemoglobin similarly to oxygen, " looks like a good spot to start a new paragraph to me, now that you're talking about pathophysiology of iron transport.
  • Health and diet "Iron is pervasive, but particularly rich sources of dietary iron include red meat, lentils, beans, poultry, fish, leaf vegetables, watercress, tofu, chickpeas, black-eyed peas, blackstrap molasses, fortified bread, and fortified breakfast cereals." I think the fortified grains should be separated, as they're not the same thing as foods naturally high in iron, and associating them so directly seems likely to falsely inflate the reader's impression of their relative nutritional value.
  • Ok, if that last sentence was paid for by the bread lobby, this one smacks of an entirely different sort of political agenda: "Although some studies suggest that heme/hemoglobin from red meat has effects which may increase the likelihood of colorectal cancer,[117][118] there is still some controversy[119] with a few studies suggesting that such claims are not supported by sufficient evidence.[120]" I'd like some assurance that someone without a pro- or anti-meat bias has actually looked at the studies and concluded that those statements accurately reflect the current scientific consensus.
  • "iron sulfate is cheaper and is absorbed equally well." Needs a citation. Was this paid for by the dietary supplements lobby? :-)
  • The discussion of fortification in the first half of the second paragraph here could be explained a bit better, specifically how differing forms of iron supplementation or fortification increase the bioavailability.
  • "Blood donors and pregnant women are at special risk of low iron levels and are often advised to supplement their iron intake.[126]" And women with particularly heavy menses. I see far too much iron deficiency anemia in clinical practice in otherwise healthy young women who do not have sufficient iron intake to offset their menstrual loss.
  • Uptake and storage We switch from talking about organisms in general, to discussing uptake in the presumably human duodenum. The entire section should clarify the applicability of its statements (humans, mammals, animalia, etc.) and proceed with them logically.
  • This section discusses cytochrome, myoglobin, and a few other topics that we've already seen touched on previously. Should it? Or, rather, should each such iron-containing biologic stratum be discussed thoroughly once?
  • Regulation of uptake "For this reason, people should not take iron supplements unless they suffer from iron deficiency and have consulted a doctor." Needs a citation.
  • I'm not sure this section is appropriately named, as about half of it talks about iron overload disorders. Iron deficiency disorders don't seem to get any space, which is an odd and probably improper omission.
  • Bioremediation Interesting, but contextless. Feels out of place and I'm not sure why our readers would care.
  • Permeable reactive barriers Why does this need its own section, and why is the targeted article unassessed? Feels like another possible coatrack for someone's commercial process, and should probably be integrated into a different section or eliminated entirely. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toxicity
[edit]
  • Should the previous section's discussions of iron overload disorders be moved to here? Or perhaps this section be moved underneath it? Or maybe both?
  • As a hazmat-certified fire offices, I can say conclusively that the NFPA 704 symbol adds nothing to the reader's understanding of iron, and it can be safely removed without losing anything, unless there's some convention that says each element should have such a diagram.

... and that's my first pass through the article. There's plenty of work here to do, but most of it should be straightforward and I see nothing that will prevent a timely GA pass if you and others want to put in the work. I will be placing the article ON HOLD, but with the caveat that for such a long and important article, I am willing to extend the hold nearly indefinitely as long as significant progress towards GA criteria continues to be made. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second text read through

[edit]
  • In Chemistry and compounds the first paragraph, the post-colon clause of the first sentence and the second sentence both start with indeed.
  • "Blacksmiths in Luristan in western Iran were making good steel by 1000 BCE." Despite this having a cite to a book... that book is ~50 years old. Is there something more modern? Wouldn't the area be known as Persia, rather than Iran, at this period?
  • "This made steel much more economical, thereby leading to wrought iron no longer being produced." Nowhere, never? I suspect that it may have undercut the production and made wrought iron obsolete for most uses, but I doubt the process for making it vanished entirely.
  • "The source of its chemical symbol Fe is the Latin word ferrum, a loanword of uncertain origin," If it's of uncertain origin, how do we know it's a loan word?

... That's about all I have for now. More later. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing Up

[edit]

I think we're pretty much done. The one problem that remains is the one introduced above in the history section by eliminating all of the Weeks-cited material deriving from Hebrew scripture. Since I have an opinion on it, it's not appropriate for me to be both editing and reviewing, but I stand by my comments above that it either 1) must be at least mentioned per DUE, or 2) All the other Weeks-referenced material has to come out, if the article's editors don't think Weeks is a current/useful source. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the entry and history of Weeks. I have the impression that the way you started to introduced that valuable work - will say by quoting various biblical entries, like primary sources - gave rise to the same problem that Weeks faced for a long time: "Chemistry faculties were inclined to place a premium on laboratory investigations, not on historical research, no matter how well done." We should write an article for all us, not just for chemistry geeks. She finally received a Dexter Award for her contributions to the history of chemistry. That said, her accolades definitely warrants to include her findings. But we should adapt them to actual conflicts and developments, like the problems faced by the israelites till Davidian time. UNder discussion currently, but not hindering GA status. And for the sake of political and overall correctness, we should not reduce the mythological aspects to judeochristian only. I introduced the role of Hesiod and Ovid's Ages of man, the Berlin iron jewellery / German iron cross and referred to further iron related topics like colors and pigments of great importance for cultural heritage, be it the surface of Mars, ochre colors or Bath stone or Iron sandstone. Polentarion Talk 10:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and lede

[edit]

I think the lede could be shorter and provide more things interesting. At least I do not care much about the tekkie stuff. I doubt nickel-56 belongs in the entry but I am sure symbolic use, etymology and historical use does. Polentarion Talk 20:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut some of the aside on 56Ni, which is only important here because 56Fe is its granddaughter. Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thnx! Polentarion Talk 08:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iron/GA1&oldid=967077670"