Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Niobium

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [1].

Niobium

[edit]
Nominator(s): Stone, Nergaal (talk) & WikiProject Elements

I'm nominating this article for featured article... as a tribute to the goddess of tears? Stone and Nergaal (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: In other uses you say:"Because niobium and some niobium alloys are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic), they are used in jewelry[52] and in medical devices such as pacemakers.[53]". The next section states:"However niobium metal, without compounds, is physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic) and harmless. It is frequently used in jewelry and was tested for medical implants.[64][65]".
First: I think the first place shows reasoning of use, while the second needs to be there as the section is dedicated to health hazards. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Reduce the number of blue links. You can remove common words such as tin, country names etc.
  2. Mention that Connecticut is a US state. You can expect everyone to know that.
    I now a lot of people for which a full list of US states would be Florida, Texas and California.
  3. discovered by Charles Hatchett --> Context: --> discovered by English chemist Charles...
  4. do mention the nationalities of the other chemists below
  5. a hydrogen atmosphere --> atmosphere & hydrogen, check if it not contradicting
  6. most leading American commercial producers --> give an example
    the sources do not specify names. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Check prose: Even after its discovery, and even after --> for the word "even"; reads colloquial
  8. Niobium metal crystals pushes the section heading right. Looks bad. Try right aligning it instead
  9. least stable ones is... --> least stable isotopes is...
  10. Why is niobium used in semiconductor elements?
    I am not sure what you mean (nergaal)
    The whole text does not include the word semiconductor, but it is used similar to tantalum in capacitors, because it is similar to tantalum and much cheaper. Done (Stone)
  11. Since it's a scientific article, how about adding the Kelvin values?
    Celsius is scientific for reaction temperatures. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Check: are used used industrially --> repetition, "industrial" as an adverb?
    Not sure what you mean (nergaal)
    Deleted industrially, because it is also in the applications section and there it is described in a better way Done (Stone)
  13. The element is never found as a free element but does occur in minerals. --> rewrite as positive tone
    haaa? what's wrong with it? (nergaal)
  14. Why is Niobium used in the steel industry? The reasons/uniqueness why Niobium is favoured over other metals should be mentioned. If it imparts strength, then move the last sentence earlier.
    Changed sentence and added why they are good and how it is done by niobium Done (Stone)
  15. Same as above for superalloys
    added sentence about hardening gamma" phase.--Stone (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. to cryogenic temperatures. --> add the value (−150 °C)
    Is it necessary? The next sentence sates it is at 9.2 K? But to add a temperature is no problem.
  17. General comment: It is frequently used in jewelry and was tested for medical implants. -- the article fails to mention "WHY?"
    are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic) was added (stone)
  18. 7 days --> spell 7
  19. Overall: Light copyedit needed to remove instances of colloquial tone
  20. Bring out the reasons "Why" Niobium is used in various applications

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried a to get a few of the points.--Stone (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all the issues without replies should be solved now. the others need some clarifications. thanks, Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Needs copyediting. I spotted a few errors while I was reading; I'll give it a second reading at some point to see if I find them again and fix them. :) The placement of the Rose photo and the crystals photo is severely wrong, at least with my browser / screen resolution / etc. A question: what were the "comments of disbelief" after the discovery? I looked up the reference and couldn't find anything I would call a comment of disbelief. I think it is better to give an exact quote rather than assessing ourselves whether the reaction was "disbelief" or not. --Itub (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be using Internet Exploder, right? I've noticed that those two images do really strange things in IE (on Windows) that I don't see on Safari (for Mac) or Firefox (for both). I'll take a look at fixing the issue later; in the meantime at least we know that this is a browser-specific problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was Firefox 2, with a window at least 1024 px wide. --Itub (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox 3 displays them ok. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find Firefox 3 is fine with window 1024px wide. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I still haven't heard any reply about the "comments of disbelief". --Itub (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right! The sentence should go. Tried to find a good ref for it but failed.--Stone (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone! --Stone (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The Rose photo and crystals photo is causing huge amounts of white space on my display (Firefox/Linux). Let me know if you want a screenshot.
I am using the syntax <div style="float: right; margin: 5px;">. It looks ok on firefox 3.0.4. I tweaked it a bit. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to add that code around images (I think something like that is already built into the "image" stuff). Also, I added a subst:clear at the end of the first section, so that there aren't problems with the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the images are on the right-hand side of the article - for the best aesthetic layout, they should be staggered per WP:MOS#Images.
It is because there are short sections which are shorter than the height of the images. If you can make it work, go ahead and play with the arrangement of the images. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I played a bit. I also desized the images per WP:MOS#Images. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there are too many images on the right-hand side at the end of the article, but we can't move any of them because of WP:ACCESS. I would suggest deleting one. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are two William Sharps who are engravers (previously I had only known of one). I've included both of their dates, as I am not sure who did the engraving. Either way it is PD. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably personal work by a user who seems to have retired long ago. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should at least try to leave a message on their talk page asking them to verify this. Then we should add such information to the page, including that it is an assumption on our part. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would Image:World Niobium Production 2006.svg be a better chart? Imade it from the BlankMap-World6,_compact.svg.--Stone (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer provenance, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced!--Stone (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look right now? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NFCC to help you understand how to fill out this form and the concerns surrounding non-free images - do not just copy the error-ridden forms from before:
  • You need a detailed description of the image.
  • The source link needs to take us to the image - I'm not going to wander around the website looking for it.
  • We are supposed to use low-resolution images whenever possible. You have marked this image as not being low resolution. Is it indeed high resolution? Why do we need a high resolution of this coin?
  • The "purpose of use" needs to be much more specific - what is special about this element being used in coin-making? I had to go to the article to find this out. Why does the reader need to see an image of this? Why are words insufficient? Note that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  • Why is the image not replaceable?
  • Who owns the copyright on this coin?
I hope this helps you fill out the form. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried to do fill it in. How is it now?
This is much better - I would add something to the "purpose of use" about the refraction creating the cool color (that is why we need to see the coin). Awadewit (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←now? Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For help with images, see this dispatch on non-free images and this dispatch on free images. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 10 (the science editor... ) is lacking a last access date
    added(stone)
  • shouldn't current ref 11 (Gupta ..) have page numbers?
    pages 1-12! (stone)
  • Current ref 12 ( van der Krogt...) is lacking a publisher, also what makes this a reliable source?
    Will search for another!(stone) deleted sentence and van der Krogt ref. --Stone (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DONE The whole sentence was deleted so the ref is no longer necessary
  • Shouldn't current ref 22 (Holleman...) have page numbers?
    Yes, but I have only the page numbers for the 1985 version.(stone)
    Holleman, Arnold F. (1985). "Niob". Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie (in German) (91–100 ed.). Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1075–1079. ISBN 3110075113. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) is what I have and if necessary I will substitute it for the ref which is in the article. --Stone (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DONE now German version with page numbers, but should contain identical informations in all available languages, but will have different page numbers.
  • What makes http://www.jxmetals.com/sdp/316680/4/cp-1271725.html a reliable source?
    It is ONLY used to say that the metal has a bluish tint. Nergaal (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ref replaced by rubber bible ref.--Stone (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DONE Was replaced with a far better source the CRC Handbook
  • Shouldn't current ref 23 (Greenwood..) have page numbers?
  • Sholdn't current ref 24 (Cardarelli...) have page numbers?
  • Same for current ref 25 (Agulyansky..)
    done (stone)
  • What makes http://www.superconductors.org/index.htm#top a reliable source?
    Exchanged it for a better one(stone)
    DONE The source was changed to a reliable one.
  • Current ref 35 (Tither..) and 36 (Dufresne..) are lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
    Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001 (stone)
    done!
    I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
    regarding reliability, see google books' entry about the book where the proceedings have been published in. Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable!
  • Current ref 39 (Heisterkamp...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
    Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone)
    done!
    I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
    DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable! The book can be looked at in a library.
  • What makes http://www.europipe.com/files/ep_tp_43_01en.pdf a reliable source?
    They produce pipline steel, so they should know what they sell(stone)
    It is actually part of the same 2001 Proceedings, and according to google scholar is cited at least 5 times. nergaal
    I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
    DONE Is a publication in a conference (same as above) proceding and reliable!
  • What makes http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/sierraleone.html a reliable source?
    DONE deleted sentence
    This the only source where you can see the coin, but reliable only in that way that the coin is real.(stone)
  • Current ref 58 (Michaluk...) is lacking a publisher... also see above about this source and reliablity.
    Proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium 2001(stone);
    I think a article from a science conference is good enough to be credible (stone)
    DONE Is a publication in a conference proceding and reliable!
  • What makes http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5254836.html a reliable source?
    I tried to solve this issue. how's now? Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DONE exchanged for a better one.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try to get a few but with the page numbers somebody else has to give the numbers, I have no access to the english versions.--Stone (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the conference, I'm questioning the publishing site. It appears to be self-published on the europipe site, rather than through a conference proceedings which would be a non-selfpublished source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first page of the europipe is an advertising page and the rest is the paper from the conference. It is also cited in a journal doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.06.003--Stone (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear on what has been done and what has been taken care of. Leaving these rest out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope every concerne was taken care of and the eplanaitions ar sufficient to understand what has been done.--
I hope my review will be helpful. Ruslik (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful, but a lot of work! Thanks for your time and we will try to solve all issues!--Stone (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the following paragraph, I wonder if there is a way to combine the two mentions of "jewelry" into one?
Because niobium and some niobium alloys are physiologically inert (and thus hypoallergenic), they are used in jewelry[53] and in medical devices such as pacemakers.[54] Niobium treated with sodium hydroxide forms a porous layer that aids osseointegration.[55] Along with titanium, tantalum, and aluminium, niobium can also be electrically heated and anodized, resulting in a wide array of colours using a process known as reactive metal anodizing which is useful in making jewelry.[56][57]
Also, under "Precautions" you mention again that "t is frequently used in jewelry". This seems repetitious.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest simplification: unless the references are specific about the particular uses mentioned, they're (the mentions) unnecessary. Anodization can serve many purposes, and jewelry is only one use. The "reactive metal anodizing" process is a redlink, and I suspect a simple link to the general article on anodizing would be sufficient, as metals can be anodized in different ways. Without that which I suggest removing, the sentence could probably also be rephrased for greater clarity. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 06:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a well written, well referenced article that I find quite interesting. I would be happy to support it if the above problems, including the prose issues, are remedied. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • I wish you would fix the repetition of "jewelry" mentioned by me above. There was a suggestion under my comment as to how you could fix it. "jewelry" is repeated twice in the same para under "Other uses" and then again under "Precautions". If you just fixed that first para under "Other uses".
deleted the first jewlery and mentioned the hypoalergic stuff at second apperance. (stone)
  • Also this repetition is confusing: In 1864, the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac was the first to prepare the pure metal, reducing niobium chloride by heating it in an atmosphere of hydrogen.[8] In 1864, Blomstrand,[7] and in 1866, the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac,[9] proved that there were only two elements.
deleted Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard and the pure because it was importabnt that he prepared the metal. (stone)
  • Is there a reason why no date is give for this: The differences between tantalum and niobium were unequivocally demonstrated by the French chemist Henri Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville and Louis J. Troost, who determined the formulas of some of the compounds.?
added the date 1865 (stone)
  • Confusion. In the para with Confusion arose from the minimal observed differences between tantalum and niobium, is this the same confusion that the para above it is talking about? There was considerable confusion[3] over the difference between the closely-related niobium and tantalum. In 1809... or a different episode of confusion?
right! has to be changed: will try today to fix it. --Stone (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged the section and tried to make it clear that it is one Confusion .--Stone (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

(I'm very busy these days, so will probably be unable to respond to these posts in a hurry. I'm still not happy with the prose:

  1. however it is believed -- weasel/peacock term
    gone (stone)
  2. At least 32 radioisotopes -- are there more than 32?
    "Up to 2003 at least 32" (stone)
  3. 30 ms -- spell out first instance. Not a commonly used unit
    now 30 milliseconds (stone)# This equation does not seem balanced: 3Nb2O5 + Fe2O3 + 12Al → 6Nb + 2Fe + 3Al2O3. Shouldn't it be 3Nb2O5 + Fe2O3 + 12Al → 6Nb + 2Fe + 6Al2O3?
    right! (stone)
  4. The world wide production according to the United States Geological Survey increased --> wordy. Start with The United States... estimates...
    reworded (stone)
  5. astimated - spelling
    now "estimated" (stone)
  6. The images in the =applications= section are all bunched up. They should correspond to the section that they are placed in. Also, left aligned images that interfere with the sectional heading are a strict style no no
  7. Niobium is occasionally used --> occasionally is a redundant word.
    gone (stone)
  8. Niobium is being evaluated -- is being evaluated by who? When will this be completed? The words convey a sense of time
    "was evaluated.... but ta capacitors are stillpredominat" (stoen)
  9. Because niobium --> Replace by "As niobium". better still shift the "because of" sentence so that it appears after the information on pacemakers.
    "Niobium .. used in pacemakers, because they are" .. (stone)
  10. $1 billion. Mention that it is USD
    "1 billion US dollars" (stone)
  11. Without addition of iron oxide the same process is used for the production of niobium. --? Confusing wording. What is the "same process"?
    now insted of same process "alumothermic process" (stone)
  12. "To reach the grade"; "In the longer term", – copyedit required
    reworded sentence (stone)
  13. "the reaction small" --> comma needed after reaction
    "the reaction, small" (stone)
  14. "US chemical industry still refer to the metal by the original "columbium"." This statement can be also augmented by including the USGS as one of the parties. Else it would be too vague
    "USGS refer to the metal by" (stone)
  15. "According to estimates" -- whose estimates?
    That of the reference. (stone)
  16. What is a "biological role"?
    These kind of statement is present in a lot of articles like #:: " Yttrium has no known biological role, though it is found in most, if not all, organisms and tends to concentrate in the liver, kidney, spleen, lungs, and bones of humans" If necessary a sentence like is not used for biochemical processes in biological systems could be added. --Stone (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It is possible that the columbium discovered by Hatchett was a mixture of these two elements. -- You have a source for this statement?
    will have a look --Stone (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the issues I have found. There might be more. I would be unable to give another look at the article for a while. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a bit of c/editing. Please see my comments in Talk. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support COI - I de-stubbed this article back in 2002. I haven't said anything until now b/c I thought this article wasn't ready. But the article now minimally qualifies given all the edits and improvements since FAC started. Some areas for improvement:
    1. More info on the element's physical properties (we normally have a full subsection on that in element articles),
    2. Another para or two about the isotopes/nucleosynthesis. Right now, the only info is the basic boilerplate filler from WP:ELEMENTS
    3. Better lead section; more info on history (we normally name the discover in the lead)
Mattisse put it in (stone)
    1. Applications section is a bit image heavy and images should never be left aligned directly below a heading.
I am not good with images, but to delete one is no problem.(stone)
But the bottom line is that this article is now FA quality - it just can be a bit better. --mav (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I attempted to address you comments about naming the discoverer in the lead, using referenced material from the section below. However, I reverted my additions, per complaints of SandyGeorgia below. Perhaps someone else can do this to her satisfaction, as this is not difficult, using the existing referenced information. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: the article is much better than several recent mainpagers; on the other hand, it can still be improved.
    1. Why was this element called columbium in the first place? It's a well-known story, and it ain't got nothing to do with doves.
      Now it states named after Columbia (stone)
    2. The fact that the USGS calls the element "columbium" is irrelevant given that this is a general U.S. term. Where did the "col" in coltan come from?
      The occurence section states columbite-tantalite (coltan ..' (stone)
    3. I'd like to see it made much more clear that niobium is used almost exclusively in high-grade structural steels, then in other structural alloys (eg, jet engines), then in superconducting alloys (very minor use, in weight terms), then the rest (the most interesting uses for a random reader).
      Should we add 90% ended up in the production of high-grade structural steel, followed by its use in superalloys --Stone (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      added 90% ended up in the production of high-grade structural steel, (stone)
    4. I can't understand the presence of separate "Notes" here. They seem to be an excuse for unreferenced speculation, but even at that I wouldn't object to them being mixed with the references (following academic style in learned journals in the field). However, note 1 seems to be irrelevant given the discussion in the article text, while note 2 is incomprehensible for the lay-reader and unreferenced for the illumint@.
      Good point will look for it on the weekend.--Stone (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried to get rid of that section. Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that this is one of our better articles, IMHO, and that it should be allowed to develop in the normal WikiWay: if that leads it to the Main Page, so be it! Physchim62 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Notes, it is unclear to me if the numerous sourcing and image concerns are resolved. Also, because there are multiple and glaring prose errors in the first paragraph of the lead, I am surprised at the Supports and haven't yet read further. Please arrange a copyedit.

Niobium is similar to tantalum, and the two are difficult to distinguish. This similarity has lead to confusion over the years during process of its recognition and naming. Niobium was first discovered in columbite in 1801, by the English chemist Charles Hatchett who initially named it columbium; that mineral has since been renamed niobite. In 1846, the German chemist Heinrich Rose distinguished that niobium and tantalum were separate elements.

The citations also need to be cleaned up, sample:

Double punctuation after the author? And mixed date formats (most are ISO, but there is an occasional linked full date). Please carefully scan the citations for consistency and formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Note to SandyGeorgia - I added to the first para of the lead a few hours ago to take care of some comments above regarding the discoverers needing to be given in the lead of articles on elements. I left edit summaries asking to have more knowledgeable persons reword and correct. Everything in the lead is immediately sourced in the text below. I do not believe there are current comments regarding the adequacy of the sourcing, except for yours. However, because of your comments, I will revert my edits immediately. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HELP!!
  • {{cite web | url = http://a.a.ö | title = a | publisher = a | accessdate = 2008-09-05}} gives
  • "a". a. Retrieved 2008-09-05. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  • {{cite journal | title = a | first = a | last = a | url = http://a.a.ö | accessdate = 2008-09-03| journal = a | isbn = |publisher = a | editor=a }} gives
  • a, a. a (ed.). "a". A. Retrieved 2008-09-03. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
    Is there somethings wrong with the date format?--Stone (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is, as I had to remove the period at the end of some initials, so they would not show up twice as complained about above: Papp, John F.. "Niobium (Columbium)". USGS 2007 Commodity Summary. Retrieved on 2008-11-20.
From your example above, I do not see what you are doing wrong to get different date formats! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The journal and the web is the problem. But journals should not get a accessdate and I will delete all accessdates from them if necessary.--Stone (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, as journals do not usually have accessdate, having the doi, pmid, or whatever instead. It is on the web that has the accessdate. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments to the Comments

About the numerous sourcing and image concerns and what is unresolved.

What I can find as unresolved:

  • The not very good www.taxfreegold.co.uk reference.
    [3] ? n
  • The crowded images in the applications section
  • to cryogenic temperatures. --> add the value (−150 °C)
    not jet added
  • current ref 22 (Holleman...) have page numbers?
    yes but I have only access to the German edition from 1985 and will substitute it by it if necessary.
  • "According to estimates" -- whose estimates?
  • What is a "biological role"?
  • Coments of mav to improve: properties, isotopes/nucleosynthesis, lead.
    lead was expanded. n
    properties expanded but might require a bit of cleanup. n
  • Coments of Physchim62 mention: called columbium, general U.S. term, high-grade structural steels, Notes are unreferenced speculation
    notes edited/removed. columbium solved. n
  • Coments on date in references and lead by SandyGeorgia
    lead should be ok. n

--Stone (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second request: when the lead has grammatical errors, the rest of the article is in doubt:

Niobium is similar to tantalum, and the two are difficult to distinguish. In 1801 the English chemist Charles Hatchett discovered a element similar to tantalum and named it columbium, but in 1809 the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston, wrongly concluded that columbium and tantalum were identical.

Perhaps you all can put a printable version of the text into a word processor and do a spell check, and get someone to carefully read through the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the word processor check and the content seems to be ok. I believe that paragraph was inserted/modified/expanded fairly recently so few people got a chance to pick the a/an error. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone must have a word processor with spell check, fundamental grammatical errors should be sorted by now:

  • Niobium was evaluated as an cheaper alternative to tantalum in capacitors.[1], but tantalum capacitor are still predominant.

Please secure a fresh set of eyes to go through the text (it would also be helpful, although not required, to remove all of the empty parameters from the cite templates, they chunk up the text in edit mode without adding anything). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one:

Along with titanium, tantalum, and aluminium, niobium can also be electrically heated and anodized, resulting in a wide array of colours using a process known as reactive metal anodizing which is useful in making jewelry,[2][3] The fact that niobium is hypoallergenic also benefits the use in jewelry.[4]

I can't promote this until you all seriously go through it, perhaps with a spell checker. Cleaning up the citations may make it easier for you all to spot these issues. For example, on medical articles, we avoid the lengthy author, coauthor, last, first parameters and all the extra punctuation by using one field: author = Biason Gomes MA, Onofre S, Juanto S, Bulhões, LO de . Much cleaner, easier to read, easier to edit around, and agrees with the citation template fromat returned by Diberri for PubMed articles, yielding consistent citations across bio/med articles; food for thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plural ?? One of the least stable is 113Nb, with an estimated half-life of 30 millisecond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. now its 30 milliseconds --Stone (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I strongly favour the term columbium hahaha, I always hated how they picked "niobium" when I was a kid. I am just massaging the prose. We are doing british spelling right? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we're using British/Commonwealth English. I standardized it early on after finding "color" and "colour" close together (and then had to fix all the "color"s again a while ago). I think I've fixed most of the American English words, but I might have missed some—it's something to watch for. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've just changed gray to the British standard grey in the first para. BTW is "rare" in that para used as a technical term (as in "rare earth"), or just as a vague qualifier? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I not used as technical term only you see it not very often. --Stone (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—there are some areas where the article clearly needs improvement (for all that we've polished it quite a bit :/ ), so I'm making a list. I'll help fix these too, but to start I'll list some sentences and what is wrong with them. Some of my comments also focus on comprehensibility by people with lesser understandings of the science in the article: I phrase some of my questions as though asked by someone clueless.

  • "Both tantalum and niobium react with chlorine and traces of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, forming two compounds: the white volatile niobium pentachloride (NbCl5) and the non-volatile niobium oxychloride (NbOCl3)." …so tantalum can form niobium pentachloride?
    right we should get rid of tantalum in this sentence.(stone)
    Better:"This confusion arose from the minimal observed differences between tantalum and niobium, additionally niobium react with chlorine and traces of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, forming two compounds: the white volatile niobium pentachloride (NbCl5) and the non-volatile niobium oxychloride (NbOCl3)."?(stone)
  • "Scientists claimed to have discovered new elements: pelopium, ilmenium and dianium, which were in fact identical to niobium or mixtures of niobium and tantalum. Other elements reported to be present included innibite." …so the scientists were claiming that imaginary elements were identical to actual elements and/or compounds? What is innibite?
    Better: "Scientists claimed to have discovered new elements: pelopium, ilmenium and dianium, later to be found identical to niobium or mixtures of niobium and tantalum."?
    innibite not the slightest clue!(stone)
    remoced half sentence Other elements reported to be present included innibite. which is a left over from copy past in the aricle.--Stone (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The differences between tantalum and niobium were unequivocally demonstrated in 1864 by Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand, and Henri Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville, as well as Louis J. Troost, who determined the formulas of some of the compounds in 1865 and finally by the Swiss chemist Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac, in 1866, who all proved that there were only two elements." Needs clarification: who did what to demonstrate these differences? Did any work together? At very least, the comma after "Blomstrand" is unnecessary.
    I have the publications and will extract the acchievments of the scientists.(stone)
    The experiments where published in several journals, but for the history section it would be a little to much to give all the people and all the claimed elements and why they are only mixtures of several elements. But a short overview might be:
  1. Marignac profed that there is only on oxide of niobium rendering the experiments of Rose and Hermann yielding two oxides wrong.
  2. All above mentioned scientists except Rose state that pelopium oxide is a mixture of tantalum oxide and niobium oxide
  3. Marignac finds in Kobells Dianium oxide amounts of titanium oxide big enough to render the the experiments uselss.
  4. Marignac and Blomstrand identify the niobium oxychloride which is neither a chloride of a new element nor a subchloride of niobium
  5. Deville and Troost meassured the molecular weight of niobium chloride and therefore the mw of niobium making the niobium chlorides of different scientists comparable
  • "In 1961 the American physicist Eugene Kunzler and coworkers at Bell Labs discovered that niobium-tin continues to exhibit superconductivity in the presence of strong electric currents and magnetic fields, thus becoming the first known material to support the high currents and fields necessary for making useful high-power magnets and electrically powered machinery." Poor Eugene Kunzler, doomed to forever be a material for high-power magnets…
    I believe I've fixed this by using the pronoun "it" to more clearly refer to niobium-tin (diff), though a more drastic rephrasing might be even more clear. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The abundance on Earth should be much greater, but the “missing” niobium may be located in the Earth’s core due to the metal's high density." Why should the abundance be greater? (the article doesn't mention stellar production or anything, though I think it might once have. Can we explain this more clearly please?)
  • "The use of niobium alloys for superconductors and in electronic components account only for a small share of the production." Aren't we supposed to avoid vague adjectives like "small"?
    The numbers change a lot due to big projects like the LHC, but less than x% might be extractable from one of the sources.(stone)
  • "Niobium is an effective microalloying element for steel. The increase in toughness and strength and the good formability and weldability of the microalloyed steel is due to improved grain refining, the retardation of recrystallization, and precipitation hardening. These effects are caused by the formation of niobium carbide and niobium nitride within the structure of the steel." From the first sentence to the second: "What increase in toughness and strength?" From the second sentence to the third: "Wait, you mean the strength increase, or the grain refining etc., or both?" This bit clearly needs to be rephrased to say that niobium allows the formation of the last-mentioned compounds, which in turn improve the characteristics mentioned, which in turn improve strength and toughness of the microalloyed steel—rather than the "backwards" form used here.
    I've rephrased this (diff), and I think it flows better now. I'd appreciate further review, though. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One example of a nickel-based niobium-containing superalloy is inconel 718, which consists of 18.6% chromium, 18.5% iron, 5% niobium, 3.1% molybdenum, 0.9% titanium, and 0.4% aluminium." Wait, it's nickel-based, but it doesn't contain nickel? What's up here?
    Nickel based means the rest: 18+18+5+3+x=100%, but it must be added.(stone)
    Better by adding "balanced by 53.5% nickel"?
  • "For example, Austria produced a series of silver niobium coins starting in 2003; the colour in these coins is created by diffraction of light by a thin oxide layer produced by anodizing." What colour? I thought you just said they were silver? Or do they contain silver? Should it be "silver-niobium coins" or "silver coins with niobium 'pills'" or what? (They're silver coins with anodized niobium on the "pill" to create a colour for the "pill", as I understand it)
    right I think I had to remove the pill, because sombody complaint about it during GAN or peer reviewing.(stone)
    Better:"For example, Austria produced a series of silver coins with niobium 'pills' starting in 2003; the colour of the niobium 'pill' is created by diffraction of light by a thin oxide layer produced by anodizing."?

This is a good start: let's get on it. I'll help fix these too, though listing them here should help a bit with the speed. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, but it is late and will start tomorrow, with what is left, by the others.--Stone (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to improve some of the points here, but need a native speaker to confirme it, had some bad reaction on my last edits to the lead due to grammar problems and typos.--Stone (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article appeared at FAC with significant prose, sourcing, image and comprehensive issues. Please try to use peer review pre-FAC in the future. I remain concerned about the number of prose issues I found each time I read the article, but the article appears to be within criteria now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Pozdeev, Y. (1991). "Reliability comparison of tantalum and niobium solid electrolytic capacitors". Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 14 (2): 79–82. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1638(199803/04)14:2<79::AID-QRE163>3.0.CO;2-Y.
  2. ^ Biason Gomes, M. A. (1991). "Anodization of niobium in sulphuric acid media". Journal of Applied Electrochemistry. 21 (11): 1023–1026. doi:10.1007/BF01077589. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Chiou, Y. L. (1971). "A note on the thicknesses of anodized niobium oxide films". Thin Solid Films. 8 (4): R37–R39. Bibcode:1971TSF.....8R..37C. doi:10.1016/0040-6090(71)90027-7.
  4. ^ Azevedo, C. R. F. (2002). "Characterization of metallic piercings that caused adverse reactions during use". Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. 2 (4): 47–53. doi:10.1007/BF02715453. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Niobium&oldid=1091712521"