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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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. Recon rabbit 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to go any further on this review until the copied text is addressed.Recon rabbit 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for taking up this review. I will look at your initial comments over the next few days.
141
Pr {
contribs} 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Putting this on hold until the maintenance tags are addressed at the least.
Recon
rabbit 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone through and commented on all the comments now.
141
Pr {
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.
Recon
rabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, that's fine. I've been really busy irl as well.
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: Just a friendly ping (I've gone through all of them).
141
Pr {
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.
Recon
rabbit 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.
Recon
rabbit 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: friendly reminder.
141
Pr -\
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. Recon rabbit 02:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current article just has far too many source issues. I will have to fail it for now. Recon rabbit 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: friendly reminder.
141
Pr -\
contribs/- 09:22, 12 May 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.
Recon
rabbit 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've just gotten back home late last night. I'll do a source check and then complete the review.
Recon
rabbit 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: Just a friendly ping (I've gone through all of them).
141
Pr {
contribs} 10:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, that's fine. I've been really busy irl as well.
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:26, 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.
Recon
rabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone through and commented on all the comments now.
141
Pr {
contribs} 08:44, 7 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:59, 6 April 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)
- Putting this on hold until the maintenance tags are addressed at the least.
Recon
rabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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.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.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? 141 Pr { contribs} 08:18, 7 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.Production, first paragraph: Clarify "radioactive substances" that are being released. Are these just Thorium as shown in the diagram?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".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.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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.
- 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
- 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. Recon rabbit 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".
141
Pr {
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. Recon rabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Source spot check (~20%) based on
this revision:
- [8]
· [11] · [25] · [21] Reference is identical to [22]. - [20]
Source only confirms the 0 state for Nd; +2 and +4 are mentioned only in the context of samarium, ytterbium, cerium and europium.
- [10]
Source is a press release and does not discuss Nd permanent magnets. A better source is guaranteed to exist.
- [31]
The page number isn't right here - should be 100?
- [41]
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. 141 Pr { 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- What? I don't understand your comment.
141
Pr {
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?
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do. If there isn't a source, only include the information supported by the current source.
Recon
rabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't find any sources about it. What shall I remove?
141
Pr {
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.
Recon
rabbit 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). 141 Pr { contribs} 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think
- 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.
Recon
rabbit 18:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't find any sources about it. What shall I remove?
141
Pr {
contribs} 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do. If there isn't a source, only include the information supported by the current source.
Recon
rabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Shall I find a source that supports this?
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:53, 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".
- What? I don't understand your comment.
141
Pr {
contribs} 11:06, 12 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is just referring to
- [43]
No mention of "eight million tonnes" or any figure for global Nd reserves.
- [45] but doesn't confirm that lanthanides are "more abundant in the Earth's crust" in the third usage,
unless it's referring to the brief section on the rare earths?
- [46]
Refers to only "chief ores", not "space" or "crust abundance". Maybe best to use this only for the "in the crust" section.
- [48]
- [49]
-
[52] No mention is made of the coloration of minerals. This only describes neodymium in glass.
- [53]
- [54] Text does not directly mention the Paris Agreement, but all other attributed content is acceptable.
- [57] 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] 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.
- [65] · [74]
- [8]
- C. It contains
no original research:
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- Substitute for uranyl acetate is copied straight out of [1]. This is less severe because it's published under CC BY 4.0, I think, but attribution needs to be indicated.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- 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?- 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. [2] Recon rabbit 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- 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.
141
Pr {
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. 141 Pr { contribs} 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a MOS:SANDWICH issue under Occurence with Bastnäsite and the photo of von Welsbach.Recon rabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- 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.
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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. Recon rabbit 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to go any further on this review until the copied text is addressed.Recon rabbit 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for taking up this review. I will look at your initial comments over the next few days.
141
Pr {
contribs} 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Putting this on hold until the maintenance tags are addressed at the least.
Recon
rabbit 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone through and commented on all the comments now.
141
Pr {
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.
Recon
rabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, that's fine. I've been really busy irl as well.
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: Just a friendly ping (I've gone through all of them).
141
Pr {
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.
Recon
rabbit 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.
Recon
rabbit 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: friendly reminder.
141
Pr -\
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. Recon rabbit 02:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current article just has far too many source issues. I will have to fail it for now. Recon rabbit 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: friendly reminder.
141
Pr -\
contribs/- 09:22, 12 May 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.
Recon
rabbit 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've just gotten back home late last night. I'll do a source check and then complete the review.
Recon
rabbit 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Reconrabbit: Just a friendly ping (I've gone through all of them).
141
Pr {
contribs} 10:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, that's fine. I've been really busy irl as well.
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:26, 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.
Recon
rabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone through and commented on all the comments now.
141
Pr {
contribs} 08:44, 7 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:59, 6 April 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)
- Putting this on hold until the maintenance tags are addressed at the least.
Recon
rabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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.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.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? 141 Pr { contribs} 08:18, 7 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.Production, first paragraph: Clarify "radioactive substances" that are being released. Are these just Thorium as shown in the diagram?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".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.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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.
- 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
- 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. Recon rabbit 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".
141
Pr {
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. Recon rabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Source spot check (~20%) based on
this revision:
- [8] · [11] · [25] · [21] Reference is identical to [22].
- [20]
Source only confirms the 0 state for Nd; +2 and +4 are mentioned only in the context of samarium, ytterbium, cerium and europium.
- [10]
Source is a press release and does not discuss Nd permanent magnets. A better source is guaranteed to exist.
- [31]
The page number isn't right here - should be 100?
- [41]
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. 141 Pr { 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- What? I don't understand your comment.
141
Pr {
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?
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do. If there isn't a source, only include the information supported by the current source.
Recon
rabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't find any sources about it. What shall I remove?
141
Pr {
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.
Recon
rabbit 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). 141 Pr { contribs} 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think
- 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.
Recon
rabbit 18:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't find any sources about it. What shall I remove?
141
Pr {
contribs} 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do. If there isn't a source, only include the information supported by the current source.
Recon
rabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Shall I find a source that supports this?
141
Pr {
contribs} 16:53, 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".
- What? I don't understand your comment.
141
Pr {
contribs} 11:06, 12 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.
Recon
rabbit 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is just referring to
- [43] No mention of "eight million tonnes" or any figure for global Nd reserves.
- [45] but doesn't confirm that lanthanides are "more abundant in the Earth's crust" in the third usage, unless it's referring to the brief section on the rare earths?
- [46]
Refers to only "chief ores", not "space" or "crust abundance". Maybe best to use this only for the "in the crust" section.
- [48]
- [49]
-
[52] No mention is made of the coloration of minerals. This only describes neodymium in glass.
- [53]
- [54] Text does not directly mention the Paris Agreement, but all other attributed content is acceptable.
- [57] 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] 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.
- [65] · [74]
- [8]
- C. It contains
no original research:
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- Substitute for uranyl acetate is copied straight out of [1]. This is less severe because it's published under CC BY 4.0, I think, but attribution needs to be indicated.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- 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?- 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. [2] Recon rabbit 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- 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.
141
Pr {
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. 141 Pr { contribs} 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a MOS:SANDWICH issue under Occurence with Bastnäsite and the photo of von Welsbach.Recon rabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- 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.