Talk:Neodymium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neodymium

I'll bring back the misspelling information that was recently removed. The misspelling "neodynium" is not notable in Wikipedia because I've corrected all of its occurrences (except one that is in a reference title on IntraLASIK) since I started editing here. Google "neodynium" and you'll find many serious scientific papers using it. The misspelling "praseodynium" can be seen much less frequent but is still worth mentioning too, I think. Warut (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Discovered in 1885

Apparently Neodymium was discovered in 1925 by C.F. Aver von Welsbach as detailed at http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/nd.html 203.206.36.108 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That what they say. Carl Auer von Welsbach died in 1929 and was not that active (experimentally) in his last years. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

morse code

Didymium glass was used during World War I to send Morse Code across the battlefields. The glass filter caused only imperceptible fluctuation in the overall light intensity, but the intended receiver had a set of binoculars fitted with a spectroscope wherewith to see the neodymium absorption bands flashing on and off.

Seems unlikely. Removed pending citations etc. 24.95.50.240 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

there is perhaps more nonsence in old glas section. Leo vel Ludvig die 1916 and the Czech "Moser Company" glass was awrded in Paris in 1925 thus before "its discovery" in 1927 a s the article claim . http://www.moser-glass.com/en/tradition/glass-museum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.124.119 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The book "Moser 1857 - 1997" officially published by the Moser company, by Jan Mergl and Lenka Pankova, describe the 1927 experiments, and reference the Leo Moser papers now in the Corning Glass Museum, Corning New York. The 1925 Award had nothing whatsoever to do with rare earth glass coloration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.71.39 (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh?

Sorry if the de-redlinking was uncalled for. But why? Redlinks are ugly. Are they there to inform people, encourage them to write about them? Answer yes/no. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{Test UR Skill!} _{What I've Done} 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:REDLINK. The whole issue causes me a certain amount of anger, I admit, since I have argued that redlinks be green since red causes many people to think that they are ugly or distracting and that they need to be removed for that reason alone. In that argument I alway get some idiot who says "not so!". And then I go back to WP and find people like yourself who are removing redlinks precisely for that reason. SBHarris 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

there is no neodym in Bastnäsite ?

from the banästite link: "There is bastnäsite-(Ce) with a more accurate formula of (Ce, La)CO3F. There is also bastnäsite-(La) with a formula of (La, Ce)CO3F. And finally there is bastnäsite-(Y) with a formula of (Y, Ce)CO3F." so, it should be mentioned in banästit and on neodym, that most rare earths are very similar and occur in mixed contributions. In truth, it seems even to be a Wrong citation: from the banästit link, the mineral "parisite" should be used as Banästite does Not contain neodymium as seems. "Bastnäsite is closely related to the mineral series parisite.[6] The two are both rare earth fluorocarbonates, but parisite's formula of Ca(Ce, La, Nd)2(CO3)3F2 contains calcium (and a small amount of neodymium) and a different ratio of constituent ions. Parisite could be viewed as a formula unit of calcite (CaCO3) added to two formula units of bastnäsite. In fact, the two have been shown to alter back and forth with the addition or loss of CaCO3 in natural environments.[citation needed]" --Wikistallion (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your point. As far as I know, any lanthanide, including Nd substitutes "La" in the bastnäsite structure, La is just more common, same for parisite. The difference between bastnäsite and parisite is mainly in the crystalline structure, not in the content of a particular lanthanide (which rather depends on geological factors). Materialscientist (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This article gives the {{doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2008.00068.x}} gives the bastenasite from Mountain Pass with 33.79% La; 45.59%; Pr 4.65%; Nd 15.82% (100% = REO+Y2O3).--Stone (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Recycling method for neodymium and samarium

Perhaps mention in article, see Recycling of neodymium and samarium KVDP (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neodymium. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213081554/http://www.gelighting.com/apo/resources/learn_about_light/history_of_light.htm to http://www.gelighting.com/apo/resources/learn_about_light/history_of_light.htm

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) 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Reformat

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by schnee. Elementbox converted 11:05, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:32, 9 July 2005).

Information Sources

Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

paramagnetic

The infobox does indicate that Nd is paramagnetic, but the section on magnets doesn't. Not mentioning it, readers might assume that it is ferromagnetic, as it makes good permanent magnets. Should we say more about the magnetic properties of Nd, and its alloys? Gah4 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Tyrium" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tyrium. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Tyrium until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Images

Article probably needs more cleanup, and also deal with the images sandwiching. If the issues wasn't fixed, then some reviewer at GAN will most likely quick fail it. 2001:4455:364:A800:75C8:6EE4:66A9:382A (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have just fixed this issue, thanks for noting it! Bli231957 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hey, I'll take this one. The article looks to be in good shape. I'll be comparing its structure to rare-earth GAs lanthanum and europium, and FA thorium. I'll be a little picky because of the article's high visibility. Any edits I make to the article will be minor (and not something I'll be a stickler on). Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments

Citations needed:

• "Some neodymium compounds have colors that vary based upon the type of lighting."

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Last paragraph in uranyl acetate

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "the demand for NdFeB magnets is expected to increase significantly in the future." Also, citing the Paris agreement directly probably isn't helpful; a third party source is needed

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• citation [64] to page 102 of [1] doesn't seem to line up

Other:

• Does Webelements meet the requirements of a reliable source?
• Does gelighting meet the requirements of a reliable source?

@Bli231957: Any comments here? No rush. Ovinus (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Not yet. Bli231957 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: I think Webelements meets the requirements, and gelighting doesn't, so I'll find another reference instead of it.Bli231957 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ovinus (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: I've found an alternative source that is more reliable. Shall I remove the current gelighting source? Bli231957 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, especially for an article where we'd expect to have a plethora of high-quality sources available. Ovinus (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuing

• "and is traditionally considered" Traditionally or just considered? (Is there any doubt) Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• "complex spectra of the elements" Link emission spectrum or whatever the most appropriate term is Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• "but changes with the type of lighting, because of the interaction of the sharp light absorption bands of neodymium with ambient light enriched with the sharp visible emission bands of mercury, trivalent europium or terbium" Er... Emission bands of europium or terbium are commonly present in lights? Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• "extremely-high-power" is this a technical term? If not, "high-power" is preferable Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• "high-performance hobby DC electric motors" Nd magnets used in hobby motors, but not in industry or commercial applications? Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• "that was present in the classical mischmetal" does this deserve to be in the first paragraph of "physical properties"? I'd put it lower.

Moved to second paragraph. Bli231957 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• "Like most other metals in the lanthanide series, neodymium usually only uses three electrons as valence electrons, as after the remaining 4f electrons are strongly bound" I don't understand this sentence.

Do you mean that there is a problem with its meaning or is it a grammatical error? Bli231957 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• "like all of the lanthanides (except lanthanum, ytterbium, and lutetium, which have no unpaired 4f electrons)" probably should be "many of"

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• "that spalls off and exposes the metal to further oxidation" To be clear, it spalls off without external force?
• The chemical formulae in Chemical properties are unnecessary and clutter the text.

Which formulae do you mean? Please clarify further. Bli231957 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant the formulas in Neodymium compounds. Ovinus (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• The list of compounds should not include their full names (just wikilink their formulae), and relatively uncommon ones should be excluded.

Which compounds are relatively common compared to the others (I would put the halides, oxide, hydroxide, carbonate and acetate)? Bli231957 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Shall I remove their full names or their chemical formulae? Bli231957 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• "Neodymium is a quite electropositive element" Needs to be more specific; how electropositive, or compared to what?
• Define "organoneodymium"

I've added a definition of organoneodymium in the section and a see also for organolanthanide chemistry. Bli231957 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• "7*10^18 years, approximately" Why approximately? If there's a huge error bar I'd say "on the order of 7*10^18 years" and then put the error in the isotope box

@Bli231957: This review's been open for a while; there remains a fair amount of work, but lmk if you're still interesting in completing it. Ovinus (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus I'll carry it on, but I'm quite busy, so I won't be on most of the time. Bli231957 (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The article is stable and there has not been an edit war, so I think that could be put as a pass. So far neodymium also passes some other criteria (e.g. NPOV), although I do agree that minor tweaks are needed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bli231957: Some more:

• Is [2] an RS? Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The same reference is used in the article Praseodymium so I think it should be an RS. Bli231957 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely not; it's a site that sells metallic samples, and has zero editorial oversight.

• I really don't think there should be such an expansive list of neodymium compounds; it distracts. Why not list the most important ones, and then hatnote to Category:Neodymium_compounds? Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  What are the most important neodymium compounds? Bli231957 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know; all I know is that there are too many in the article right now. They shouldn't be in list form, in any case. Ovinus (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think they should be judged by the quality of the actual article on whether they should be included. If there is no article, they definitely should be removed, as we do not even know they exist. I did this with neodymium carbide. Stubs must be removed as well as they are barely notable and not imporantant. Most Start-Class compounds should be removed, but keep the most important 2-3. Anything C-Class or better should be on the list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  For example, I removed the sulfides section, as one is without an article and probably does not exist and the other is an unimportant stub. However, neodymium acetate should be kept as it is B-Class and a relatively important compound. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've also removed the non-existent article neodymium(IV) fluoride, and changed the hydride to the nitride (more notable) Bli231957 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• "meta states" Does this mean something else than "metastable isotopes"? Never heard of it before Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think it does mean "metastable isotopes". Bli231957 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Neodymium isotopes are used in various scientific applications." Well, sure... probably specify radioactive isotopes Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• "Several neodymium isotopes have been used for the production of other promethium isotopes." Extremely vague; either specify which isotopes (of promethium, at least) or remove Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• "didymos (διδύμος), twin.[8][26]..." Do we need six sources for an etymology? I'm assuming some of the sources are for previous sentences; I'd move them closer if possible Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• "Because of its role ... for expanded production." Is this one source enough to include this sentence? (Do any other important sources make similar claims) Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Broader comment:

This article still seems pretty far from GA, sorry. You're welcome to renominate it; here are some concerns for others to evaluate:

• I agree with the WP:TECHNICAL tag on Physical properties. Also, much of that section isn't even about physical properties—the lead sentence Neodymium is the fourth member of the lanthanide series. is not really a physical property. That stuff should go in Chemical properties. "Metallic neodymium has a bright, silvery metallic luster." should probably be first. See Caesium#Physical properties for a good example. What about other general properties, like conductivity, spectrum, density, melting point?
• Solubility of neodymium salts in water is not discussed. Would be good to say that Nd+3 is generally soluble.
• Strange language sprinkled throughout: "can access the midpoints of pressure and temperature regions"; "has been rapidly increasing owing to the growing population and industrial development" (growing human population? seems a bit obvious)
• "due to the release of radioactive substances during the mining process" – Apparently a bit more description on the mining process is in order; why are there radioactive compounds being released?
• Neodymium is a product of nuclear fission reactors (Nuclear fission product)
• Listing of the various neodymium compounds needs to be done in prose form, grouping them by various qualities (coloredness? solubility? etc). Otherwise it's a fairly useless collection
• Questionable sources: [3], [4]
• Why is "R. J. Callow, The Industrial Chemistry of the Lanthanons, Yttrium, Thorium, and Uranium, Pergamon Press, 1967." in further reading? Ovinus (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Neodymium

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Neodymium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Greenwood1229":

• From Cerium: Greenwood and Earnshaw, pp. 1229–1232
• From Praseodymium: Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 1229–32

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Marks Brothers

Who are Marks brothers as mentioned in Neodymium#History so that their opinion on the name is relevant? Jariola (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2022 (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:Neodymium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Reconrabbit. I did an initial pass through of the article but will look more in depth as I go through the criteria. As an opening note, Praseodymium-141, the nominator, has contributed 45.9% of the article according to XTools. Reconrabbit 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to go any further on this review until the copied text is addressed. Reconrabbit 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. I will look at your initial comments over the next few days. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Putting this on hold until the maintenance tags are addressed at the least. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit reminder ping to close this out soon if you want it to count for the backlog drive. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about my progress in the backlog drive; please ignore this review as part of that effort. Pr-141 is making good efforts here. Reconrabbit 17:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through and commented on all the comments now. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I left my responses to most things. Almost there! I may have a delay because I'm away for the weekend and have to do everything on my phone. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem, that's fine. I've been really busy irl as well. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: Just a friendly ping (I've gone through all of them). ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 10:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just gotten back home late last night. I'll do a source check and then complete the review. Reconrabbit 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been a ton of issues coming up with the source checks. I'm not sure I can pass this. Will ask for a second opinion. Reconrabbit 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: friendly reminder. ¹⁴¹Pr -_\contribs/- 09:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

After trying to solicit a second opinion for almost a month without success I don't feel like the article can pass right now. Too many of the sources are low quality or couldn't be verified. This week I can go looking to see if I can address the last few things on my own, but there are still sources I haven't checked that could have similar issues. Reconrabbit 02:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The current article just has far too many source issues. I will have to fail it for now. Reconrabbit 19:22, 18 May 2024 (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:

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

   Lead section, second paragraph: This color changes with the type of lighting because of the interaction of the sharp light absorption bands of neodymium with ambient light enriched with the sharp visible emission bands of mercury, trivalent europium or terbium. This sentence is kind of run-on and needs to be rewritten, since it's a little too complex for the lead.

   Shall I remove the entire explanation or just the enriched part? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   On revision: this isn't that much of an issue and is clarified in the text. Reconrabbit 15:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   Neodymium-doped glasses could it be clarified that this means "glass that has been doped with neodymium"? Only because there is quite literally a photo of a pair of glasses later on.

   Clarified. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   History, second paragraph: The evolving technology, and improved purity of commercially available neodymium oxide, was reflected in the appearance of neodymium glasses in collections today. This sentence feels out of place. Maybe reword to exclude "evolving"?

   I agree that this sentence feels out of place. However, I don't know how to reword it either. Shall I remove it? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Find a better way to say "neodymium glass technology improved" or don't bother saying it at all, I think. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Reworded I guess. I'm not sure if it is better though. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   The wording is more straightforward and sticks out less in the paragraph, which I see as an improvement. Reconrabbit 15:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   History, third paragraph: Because of its role in permanent magnets used for direct-drive wind turbines, it has been argued that neodymium will be one of the main objects of geopolitical competition in a world running on renewable energy. This perspective has been criticised for failing to recognise that most wind turbines do not use permanent magnets, and for underestimating the power of economic incentives for expanded production. This is a weird inclusion and may be better added under applications. There's also a tone problem here. Sources are apparently reliable, but there has to be a more neutral way of saying this.

   I'm not sure what to do with this paragraph, but it certainly feels out of place. Shall I remove it? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   I would say remove it. Interested parties can write their own article on the geopolitical implications of the rare earth metals. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

    Removed. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Production, first paragraph: Clarify "radioactive substances" that are being released. Are these just Thorium as shown in the diagram?

   Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

   Production, third paragraph: NdFeB magnets are used in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)... Why are all of these applications provided with abbreviations even though they are never mentioned again later in the article? The most egregious of these is "hereinafter referred to as xEVs".

   rmved abbreviations. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

   Applications: Starting off with a list is awkward. Consider rewriting this as prose or providing a lead-in sentence to clarify why these particular uses are being listed.

   I'm not sure what to do with this lol. I put a very short lead sentence that doesn't really add anything new. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   That's fine. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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:

   "Lodders 2003" is broken. Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.) in the bibliography is not cited directly anywhere in the article. Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements is cited, but not with sfn, so either remove the entry in the bibliography or the named reference in References.

   Removed entry in the bibliography. (I think I added it when I didn't know what a bibliography was for, when I just started editing Wikipedia) ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   The other items in the bibliography either have to be removed or renamed as "further reading", because there's no indication of relevance to Nd. Reconrabbit 15:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   Reading more in-depth here, there are a few citations that should have been Sfn formatted but are just plain text. I highly recommend going over these and changing the way they are displayed (either add back the bibliography or just turn these into standard citations with page numbers): Emsley, pp.120-5 and all instances of Greenwood and Earnshaw

   Fixed all the sfn stuff. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Great work. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   B. 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):

   There are still two present "citation needed" tags. I've added additional maintenance templates. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   I've gone through as much as I can - I can't find any reference for the remaining [citation needed] tag, and don't know what to do about the [clarification needed] tag in "Biological role and precautions". ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   It seems hard to believe that there are no sources on the formation of neodymium hydroxide, but the page on that doesn't give the best sources either. If this is not a particularly important compound of Nd, I would remove the statement; otherwise, use the citation on the page and indicate that it forms in ammonia water as stated. As for the clarification - my question here is what is meant by "effective". Maybe it would be better to state that neodymium is among the lanthanides found to have a biological role in these bacteria. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Well, for the [citation needed] tag I just noticed that I could've used the citation used in the halogen bit. For the clarification, I have removed the "effective" part and just stated that neodymium has a biological role in the bacteria. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Source spot check (~20%) based on this revision:

   • [8] Y  · [11] Y  · [25] Y  · [21] Y Reference is identical to [22].
   • [20] Y Source only confirms the 0 state for Nd; +2 and +4 are mentioned only in the context of samarium, ytterbium, cerium and europium.

   On checking this is the same source as [4]; it only refers to the 0 oxidation state. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [10] Y Source is a press release and does not discuss Nd permanent magnets. A better source is guaranteed to exist.

   Added a better source. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [31] Y The page number isn't right here - should be 100?

   Changed the page to 100. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [41] Y This decribes fractional crystallization but does not describe the preceding information about glass.

   I think it is just referring to Early neodymium glasses made in the 1930s have a more reddish or orange tinge than modern versions, which are more cleanly purple, because of the difficulties in removing traces of praseodymium using early technology, namely fractional crystallization, not the rest. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   Then shouldn't there be a citation for "early neodymium glasses have a more reddish or orange tinge"? I can't find any reference to this in the text unless it's in a different chapter. Reconrabbit 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   What? I don't understand your comment. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   I cannot find where this source supports "Early neodymium glasses made in the 1930s have a more reddish or orange tinge than modern versions".

   Shall I find a source that supports this? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Please do. If there isn't a source, only include the information supported by the current source. Reconrabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Well, I couldn't find any sources about it. What shall I remove? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Since this writing doesn't point to the impurities developing any particular colors in the glass, the best thing to do with what you have is to write on how early methods of separating the lanthanides depended on fractional crystallization, which did not allow for the isolation of high-purity neodymium until the aforementioned ion exchange methods were developed after World War II. Reconrabbit 18:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Do you think Early methods of separating the lanthanides depended on fractional crystallization, which did not allow for the isolation of high-purity neodymium until the aforementioned ion exchange methods were developed after World War II. (what you put in the comment above) would work? (I'm not very sure what to put). ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

   If you think that's a good enough revision, then please use that. Reconrabbit 20:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

   Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 06:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [43] N No mention of "eight million tonnes" or any figure for global Nd reserves.

   I can't find another source that mentions this - shall I remove this? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   I would remove it. You already have the relative abundance from the CRC Handbook. Reconrabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Removed. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [45] Y but doesn't confirm that lanthanides are "more abundant in the Earth's crust" in the third usage, Y unless it's referring to the brief section on the rare earths?

   I don't understand your comment - can you clarify please? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Is the quantity of lanthanides in this source being used to support the claim "The lanthanides are not usually found in space"? Reconrabbit 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   I think so. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [46] Y Refers to only "chief ores", not "space" or "crust abundance". Maybe best to use this only for the "in the crust" section.

   Removed in the space section, left in the crust section. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [48] Y
   • [49] Y
   • [52] N No mention is made of the coloration of minerals. This only describes neodymium in glass.

   Well, I can't access this source. Shall I find another? ¹⁴¹Pr -_\contribs/- 17:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [53] Y
   • [54] Y Text does not directly mention the Paris Agreement, but all other attributed content is acceptable.
   • [57] N Source states the opposite of what is claimed - "Samarium-cobalt magnets corroded quickly within 24 hours", and the article says "neodymium-based magnets lose their magnetism at lower temperatures[55] and tend to corrode,[56] while samarium–cobalt magnets do not."
   • [62] Y While it does support the text, there has to be a better source than a website that has "Add to Basket" as the first thing you see.

   Couldn't find any better sources. ¹⁴¹Pr -_\contribs/- 17:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [65] Y  · [74] Y

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Substitute for uranyl acetate is copied straight out of [5]. This is less severe because it's published under CC BY 4.0, I think, but attribution needs to be indicated.

   I'll sort it later. In the meantime, can you give me an example of suitable attribution? Or, shall I just remove te section? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   Use Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice to indicate it. Usually it's placed at the end of the references section. Reconrabbit 15:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I see that this follows MOS:CHEM and the structure of Praseodymium, which is helpful for comparison. I recommend turning Isotopes into its own section.

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Concerns here are listed in criteria 1B. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

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

   Is "Marks Brothers" as mentioned on the Talk page relevant, or just manufacturer spam that had gotten onto the page briefly?

   It's not relevant any more, I added it when I was a rookie. 😅 ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   Just noticed an invisible comment regarding the year of discovery being inaccurate. Probably best to delete this as no other source on the internet corroborates it. [6] Reconrabbit 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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:

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

   The photo of Carl Auer von Welsbach has a vague caption that could be interpreted to mean that the photo of him was taken in 1885, not that he discovered neodymium in 1885.

    Done Made clearer. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   The image File:YAG2.svg at the end uses Dutch text. Up to you if this is an issue in interpretability.

   I don't see any dutch here. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   The "Pomp" text in the excitation. I'm more concerned that the energy level diagram may be hard to interpret for a wide base of readers without explanation. (Sorry, I forgot to finish my sentence.) Reconrabbit 13:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   So what do you want me to do with the diagram? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

   It's out of scope for this review - it shouldn't be an issue, but I'm still going to make a note of it here. Reconrabbit 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   There is a MOS:SANDWICH issue under Occurence with Bastnäsite and the photo of von Welsbach. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   I don't see any sandwiching going on, can you clarify further please? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   My bad, it's only an issue if the window is stretched out very far horizontally. Reconrabbit 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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.