Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lead(II) nitrate/archive1

Lead(II) nitrate

The Chemicals wikiproject team joined hands in a recent Article of the Month effort for enhancing the lead(II) nitrate from a small promising subject to an FA-class article. The article aptly fulfills now all requirements that the wikiproject puts on assigning the A-Class, which are equivalent to the general FA-class requirements with specific chemicals items, such the chemicals infobox, and emphasis on inclusion of appropriate safety data. In my perception, this effort has been successful. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Where's the ld 50/30? Raul654 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question: there isn't any reliable safety data available for this particular lead salt. Serious estimates should be based on equivalent salts and/or metallic lead. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I enhanced the Safety to state as much. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- We don't usually quote LD50 values, as they take more time explaining than they're actually worth. Physchim62 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. Chris 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (biase:I have been a recent contributor to this article) V8rik 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (1)Is it possible to explain the fact that this substance is carcinogenic. How does it cause cancer? When was this discovered? Is there research about this, or is this simply evident due to its chemical nature? A short section and a few references about this would be appreciated. (2) Was this substance only used in medieval Europe, or also elsewhere (Ottoman empire, China, India, etc). I think the history section should be expanded (if possible). Sijo Ripa 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. I simply added that indeed this product was Europe only until the 20th century to the History section, and enhanced the Safety section with a paragraph about the carcinogenity. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  - I have expanded the safety section to address some of the points you raise: it is carcinogenic as well as being acutely toxic, and the best explanation I have come accross I have placed in the article. It's probably not the only explanation for lead toxicity, but it's a start! Physchim62 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, history section is extremely sparse. Two sentences that don't cover anything since the 15th century is not enough background for a featured subject. There's an applications section; how did it come to be used? The application section is kind of bad too, with an uncited weasely sentence that has incorrect grammar to boot: "Is it reported that lead nitrate has an effect on the leaching process in gold cyanidation, improving speed and yield, particularly in processing partially oxidized ores." Safety section is not in compliance with WP:NPOV by giving advice and instructions ("Due care should be taken before and during handling of the material."). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of lead(II) nitrate isn't a big story, and most information is presented in the (short) section. I copyedited the History for clarity. Removed the weasel sentence from the Applications section (thanks for pointing this out), and further copy-edited it for more improvement. Safety section (see other remarks above) is significantly enhanced and copyedited. I hope this mitigates the problems you saw. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree with Wim here, lead(II) nitrate does not have much of a history behind it (unlike other lead compounds). Physchim62 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. Rlevse 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Needs a copy-edit before promotion. In particular, there are recurring problems concerning the smooth, logical integration of ideas into sentences. For example:
- "Lead(II) nitrate is toxic and probably carcinogenic, and therefore should be handled and stored with precautions." Three "ands" in a row; try "Lead(II) nitrate is toxic and probably carcinogenic; therefore, it should be handled and stored with CARE." Why are those two words italicised?
- "... synthesized and described the product as plumb dulcis or calx plumb dulcis." Um ... try: "... synthesized the product and named it plumb dulcis (or calx plumb dulcis). And did he provide both names? It's unclear whether other people have added the "calx".
- "Nearly all other lead compounds are insoluble in water, even salts such as lead(II) chloride and lead(II) sulfate; lead(II) acetate is the only other common lead compound that is soluble." The semicolon and second clause are good, but the comma is wrong—try an em dash. Tony 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All remarks here are fully true, and of course taken care of, now. Additionally to the issues pointed out, I did give the article a more thorough once-over, as lines of thought, textual consistency, and grammar should all be of prime quality. Thanks for pointing out these three specific examples. Answers to your questions:
    - The probably carcinogenic was italic as it is a formal term, now covered by an explanatory wikilink
    - Yes, the attribution of these two mediaeval terms is to Libavius, although that is of course always difficult to prove. He did use both terms in texts.
    - The use of an — in this context didn't feel optimal to me, so I copy-edited the whole paragraph to improve the whole line of text.
  - Additional to the above, I invited a non-chemist, native Am-English speaker to have a look at the text as well, and he contributed (thanks, Randy!) with some specific word improvements. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment the history section oddly stops at 19th century Europe; there is a little bit of extra information in the lead, but I'm only guessing that production picked up in the late 20th century due to its use in explosives and manufacturing. Is that the case? I think a fair bit more could be said about how use of the compound changed, and thus production increased in the history section.--Peta 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if we can get some data on it, although it is not manufactured on a very large scale so statistics may be hard to come by. Physchim62 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did give a thorough (non-internet) investigation, but failed to find any serious production data. I can try again. but share PC's low expectation. Even nowadays, production on any industrial level seems to be non-existant, just lab-scale. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  - Many inorganic "specialty" chemicals such as lead(II) nitrate are batch produced, with one batch lasting a particular supplier for years: it does not decompose on normal storage. Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as featured article, of course, congrats to those who have helped with the improvement drive. Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]