![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
It would be interesting to have a paragraph on where rare earths are used to give a bit more context. As it is the article is quite technical, but does not give a good idea of why they are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.benesch ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It is 2020, and the 2012 comment above still holds weight. A paragraph was added on uses, but the rest of the article treats REE as pollutants that we need to get rid of. REE are essential for the function of Electric car motors, iPhones, military jet engines, batteries, and satellites. One impairment to the German war effort in World War II was the short lifespan of their Jet Engines, because we had a secure supply of REE and the Germans did not. unsigned comment added by nelsoc4 19:03, 4 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.214.27 ( talk)
Now it's 2022 and the above comments are still timely. Case in point, reference 102 was written by an investment manager at the European Investment Bank and provides no direct citations for the allusion that solar panels, solar-charged batteries, or [most] windfarms use REEs. Munchyhunch ( talk) 00:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The lede needs a different approach for accessibility. For example, after reading the entire lead, I cannot answer the rather simple question, are these substances solid, liquid or gas? That they are metals is indicative but not dispositive: mercury is a metal and it is a liquid; hydrogen is a metal and it is a gas. The general reader neither knows or cares what the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry is; my General Chemistry textbook defines the rare earth elements and that's plenty good authority. That organization name should be moved into a technical footnote. The second sentence about the actinides is placing a falsehood in one of the most important passages in the article - the actinides are not the lanthanides, and that's the end of the argument. That statement should be moved into the text and placed in a historical footnote.
The second paragraph of the lede is a bare list of the elements. Consider whether in an article about the chemical elements, we'd give a general description, then add a whole paragraph: "Their names are: <list of all 118 or so elements>". The problem is that a bare list conveys no information, and it's a pernicious problem throughout the encyclopedia. The list here is especially superfluous because there's a whole level 2 section which is nothing but that list. We can omit the paragraph with no loss of information or readability.
The abbreviations section is rather garish; the abbreviations can be moved into a technical footnote.
So back to the lede: what do I experience if I have a "gob" of gadolinium on my tabletop (say in a chem lab)? Then again, if I'm digging in my backyard, and come across one of these, what do I see? Instead of a list of names, a paragraph describing one or a few of the commoner rare earths, and their applications, would be far more accessible. Here's what I propose for the first sentence of the lede:
The rare earth elements, also called the rare earth metals or (in context) rare earth oxides, or the lanthanides (though yttrium and scandium are usually included as rare earths) are a set of 17 nearly indistinguishable lustrous silvery-white soft heavy metals. They are distributed thinly through the earth's crust, usually as oxides in minerals and clays containing silicon, iron, and other compounds. They are called "rare" because there are few concentrated or mineable deposits.
Sbalfour ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I've redrafted the lede a bit in accordance with the above, but it's still quite anemic. It could/should be 4-6 decent paragraphs incorporating at least the following:
This is sort of defines the structure of the article itself. Sbalfour ( talk) 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The lead section (final paragraph) states that Cerium has an abundance of "68 parts per million". However, the overview table lists its abundance as 66.5 ppm. Not much of a difference - but still a difference. Which one is correct? PatricKiwi ( talk) 19:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It is no longer true that the lanthanides have no known biological role. They have been found to be required in the active sites of several specialized enzymes. For instance various lanthanide dependent methanol dehydrogenases have been found (see https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01366/full) Ethan801 ( talk) 21:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"In 2019, China supplied between 85% and 95% of the global demand for the 17 rare earth powders, half of them sourced from Myanmar.[53] " - This reference does not mention Myanmar. This comment above was by me, I've now made an account because I want to see what happens with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.231.173.98 ( talk) 07:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a sentence about them not actually being rare but if the article even mentions WHY they are called "rare earth" it sure hides it well. Why not have it stated the naming off the topic instead of only trivia like a town one of them were named after? 64.72.40.86 ( talk) 13:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hxu459 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
PinkmicrobeLW.
— Assignment last updated by MethanoJen ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 17 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zitong Lin1996 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
KaylaCarleton,
YilinHuang1004,
Dan-is-gniess.
— Assignment last updated by Naeim9146 ( talk) 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems most of the sources use "rare earths" and not "rare-earths", yet the entire article is written with the hyphen.
Perhaps we need to open a discussion about which style the article should use. 71.11.5.2 ( talk) 16:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Round Top Mountain isn't listed in this article. Leaving this here, in case it might be useful to some editor. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Grishaplantman (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs ( talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
It would be interesting to have a paragraph on where rare earths are used to give a bit more context. As it is the article is quite technical, but does not give a good idea of why they are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.benesch ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It is 2020, and the 2012 comment above still holds weight. A paragraph was added on uses, but the rest of the article treats REE as pollutants that we need to get rid of. REE are essential for the function of Electric car motors, iPhones, military jet engines, batteries, and satellites. One impairment to the German war effort in World War II was the short lifespan of their Jet Engines, because we had a secure supply of REE and the Germans did not. unsigned comment added by nelsoc4 19:03, 4 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.214.27 ( talk)
Now it's 2022 and the above comments are still timely. Case in point, reference 102 was written by an investment manager at the European Investment Bank and provides no direct citations for the allusion that solar panels, solar-charged batteries, or [most] windfarms use REEs. Munchyhunch ( talk) 00:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The lede needs a different approach for accessibility. For example, after reading the entire lead, I cannot answer the rather simple question, are these substances solid, liquid or gas? That they are metals is indicative but not dispositive: mercury is a metal and it is a liquid; hydrogen is a metal and it is a gas. The general reader neither knows or cares what the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry is; my General Chemistry textbook defines the rare earth elements and that's plenty good authority. That organization name should be moved into a technical footnote. The second sentence about the actinides is placing a falsehood in one of the most important passages in the article - the actinides are not the lanthanides, and that's the end of the argument. That statement should be moved into the text and placed in a historical footnote.
The second paragraph of the lede is a bare list of the elements. Consider whether in an article about the chemical elements, we'd give a general description, then add a whole paragraph: "Their names are: <list of all 118 or so elements>". The problem is that a bare list conveys no information, and it's a pernicious problem throughout the encyclopedia. The list here is especially superfluous because there's a whole level 2 section which is nothing but that list. We can omit the paragraph with no loss of information or readability.
The abbreviations section is rather garish; the abbreviations can be moved into a technical footnote.
So back to the lede: what do I experience if I have a "gob" of gadolinium on my tabletop (say in a chem lab)? Then again, if I'm digging in my backyard, and come across one of these, what do I see? Instead of a list of names, a paragraph describing one or a few of the commoner rare earths, and their applications, would be far more accessible. Here's what I propose for the first sentence of the lede:
The rare earth elements, also called the rare earth metals or (in context) rare earth oxides, or the lanthanides (though yttrium and scandium are usually included as rare earths) are a set of 17 nearly indistinguishable lustrous silvery-white soft heavy metals. They are distributed thinly through the earth's crust, usually as oxides in minerals and clays containing silicon, iron, and other compounds. They are called "rare" because there are few concentrated or mineable deposits.
Sbalfour ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I've redrafted the lede a bit in accordance with the above, but it's still quite anemic. It could/should be 4-6 decent paragraphs incorporating at least the following:
This is sort of defines the structure of the article itself. Sbalfour ( talk) 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The lead section (final paragraph) states that Cerium has an abundance of "68 parts per million". However, the overview table lists its abundance as 66.5 ppm. Not much of a difference - but still a difference. Which one is correct? PatricKiwi ( talk) 19:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It is no longer true that the lanthanides have no known biological role. They have been found to be required in the active sites of several specialized enzymes. For instance various lanthanide dependent methanol dehydrogenases have been found (see https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01366/full) Ethan801 ( talk) 21:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"In 2019, China supplied between 85% and 95% of the global demand for the 17 rare earth powders, half of them sourced from Myanmar.[53] " - This reference does not mention Myanmar. This comment above was by me, I've now made an account because I want to see what happens with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.231.173.98 ( talk) 07:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a sentence about them not actually being rare but if the article even mentions WHY they are called "rare earth" it sure hides it well. Why not have it stated the naming off the topic instead of only trivia like a town one of them were named after? 64.72.40.86 ( talk) 13:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hxu459 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
PinkmicrobeLW.
— Assignment last updated by MethanoJen ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 17 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zitong Lin1996 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
KaylaCarleton,
YilinHuang1004,
Dan-is-gniess.
— Assignment last updated by Naeim9146 ( talk) 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems most of the sources use "rare earths" and not "rare-earths", yet the entire article is written with the hyphen.
Perhaps we need to open a discussion about which style the article should use. 71.11.5.2 ( talk) 16:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Round Top Mountain isn't listed in this article. Leaving this here, in case it might be useful to some editor. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Grishaplantman (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs ( talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)