Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
There has been a whole lot of work done on the Chromium article to get it prepared to become a Featured Article Candidate, and there is still a whole lot more work that needs to be accomplished. Many of the frequent editors have a good idea about the direction that this article needs to follow to get it to FAC, but we would love to hear the opinions of other editors about what work still needs to be done here.
Thanks, UtopianPoyzin ( talk) 12:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Before we begin, I'd like to suggest you separate the part on occurrence into its own section: a proper discussion on occurrence will include a talk on chromium in space, and that deserves a subsection of its own. Also, it would allow you to focus this section on physical properties, for which you need three subsections: a subsection on atomic properties (nano-scale properties defined by the electron shell), bulk (macro-scale) properties, and isotopes (nuclear properties). See Lead#Physical properties for an example of how that would work. Also, passivation is a chemical process, and if it deserves a dedicated subsection, it should be located in the section of chemical properties, even though you can obviously mention it in the preceding section on physical properties (probably in the subsection on bulk properties).
Remark on lead
I will probably often refer to lead as to an example of how things can/should be done. This is my most recent FA so far, and it exemplifies what kind of an article I could write. My articles have previously been described as informative and easy to read by readers, so that should be a good thing. Also, not only is it an FA, but it has also been published in Wikipedia's own journal (which means it underwent an even tougher review than FAC, and the review was really helpful). I suggest you give the article a read; most sections could be rewritten following analogous sections in it as an example. As I review the article, I will try to explain what exactly that means for this particular article.-- R8R ( talk) 12:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
My best general advice I can give you is: always think about your reader. Imagine what kind of information your reader would want from this article. If something is unclear to you, then it will certainly be unclear to some readers, so you will certainly go good by finding out whatever was unclear to you and explaining it in the article, possibly in a note rather than the main text.
Also, speaking of notes: while you are not required to use them, don't be afraid to do so as they can be really beneficial to your writing. For instance, check notes in lead: that's how it can work, adding both interesting facts to your story or explaining the ones you already have.
Another piece of advice: more is fine as long as it's not in the final version. If you are unsure whether something is important enough to be added in the article, go ahead and add it for now; you'll see if you need it later. If the section is obviously too long, you can copy its contents to a subarticle, which will make the job of trimming the section in the main article much easier. This is how the history of aluminium started, for instance. (Speaking of which, could you revisit the FAC?)
Quick note: the plural form of "μm" is still "μm." This is a symbol, not a word, so it does not need pluralization. The same is certainly true for all metric units and IIRC for all U.S. customary units as well (I've seen "lbs" but that's incorrect).-- R8R ( talk) 13:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's get to the section now. You essentially need to write this anew (let's deal with the Isotopes part later) as you only have two sentences. It is better to start off with atomic properties as it is macro properties that are defined by the atomic ones, not vice versa. (You could continue this line of thinking by saying that most properties are defined by the 24-electron shell, which has precisely 24 electrons because the nucleus has 24 protons and thus the section should begin with a subsection on Isotopes, but it's up to you. Unlike the electron shell properties, which are easy to link to the macro properties, I haven't found a way to naturally interlink the nuclear and the electron shell properties (apart from the fact there are both 24 protons and electrons), and interlinking is the best thing in an article, when a reader gets there is A, and then B follows from A, and then С follows from A and B, etc.; you may remember I recommended a section order based on this as well.)
So given that, your section should start with a talk on the atom, something like "A chromium atom has 24 electrons arranged in the electron configuration [Ar]3d54s1." This configuration is one of the most iconic exceptions to the Aufbau principle, so you should mention that and explain why it is the case. The usual explanation is that the half-filled subshell is somehow more stable, but here's a rebuke to that. What immediately follows from that configuration? For lead, it was the relativistic effects; for chromium, it is the fact that the element is located in the first transition series. In turn, that leads to.. well, that's up to you. For instance, lead's most notable characteristic is its density, that's what the element is best known for with most people. Chromium's, perhaps, is its shininess. Explain why the metal is so shiny. See Relativistic quantum chemistry#Color of gold and caesium for how a similar question is treated. Another implication must be the magnetic order, which you can now mention on the atomic scale and set stage for the macro scale magnetic properties. Probably you could talk about the unit cell of chromium. Maybe you could mention that the metallic bonding in chromium is provided by three electrons. You could mention that the atomic and ionic radii contract throughout the 3d series. I suggest you start off with something of your choice and see how it works.
(Why I don't give direct suggestions and rather leave something up to you is because I've learned to think that everyone should be allowed to write in their own style, rather than uniform. That is why we have WP:ENGVAR, for instance. This is also why I suggested we don't re-structure titanium and zinc even though I find their structures worthy of some improvement.)-- R8R ( talk) 10:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, I don't have an immediate recipe for success or else my own writing would be done in fewer edits. But as it often happens, it's best to try everything you find worthy of trying and then leave the best. It's also engaging once you get to do it. That was why I suggested different things for the Atomic subsection. I probably will continue this fashion later. The article is not (yet) in a near-FA state when you already have the text and have now to polish it by adding small missing parts and removing superfluous ones (probably save for the biological sections); we (well, you, unless you ask for direct help) have yet to write the text.-- R8R ( talk) 15:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've given it some more thought and decided it could be great to mention chromium's shininess in the section on chemistry even though it's a physical phenomenon: all metals are shiny (we can describe why that is in one phrase and leave a suggestion to the reader to read an external source if they want to know more) and it's chromium's passivation that helps preserve that shininess. I, however, am faced with the question: why is chromium (like aluminum) shiny even after passivation but lead isn't? We definitely should figure it out and see from there.
The section on bulk properties probably doesn't need much commentary. Lead#Bulk is great and you'll do fine by just copying it. Maybe you only need to mention magnetism as well since the article claims it is remarkable (for which you should pave the road in the Atomic subsection).
The subsection on isotopes claims that there are three stable isotopes while the infobox says there are four. Which one do I believe?
(More on the Isotopes subsection later.)-- R8R ( talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Is Cr-50 stable or not? The present state of the article doesn't let me make a definite conclusion. Either way, it is certainly stable for any practical purpose, so you should group it with the stable isotopes. The only difference would be that if it is actually radioactive (i.e., it has been observed to decay) you'd say chromium is composed of four isotopes but only three of these are truly stable and one is practically stable but actually decay with an extraordinarily long half-life and the most stable radioactive isotope other than Cr-50 is ... If Cr-50 has only been theorized but not observed to decay, you should say there are four observationally stable isotopes but one of these may actually decay with these characteristics of the decay. More soon, hopefully tonight.-- R8R ( talk) 09:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The first and the third paragraphs certainly should be merged.-- R8R ( talk) 23:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
At best, you should have an idea of what your result is going to look like before you start. If you're not sure, it's fine to just go for it and try to figure out in the process, but if it is helpful to know what you're aiming for beforehand. I suggest this structure of this section: you start off with a few words on reactivity of chromium metal, then follows a subsection on inorganic compounds, divided into a subsubsection on Cr(III), a subsubsection on Cr(VI), a subsubsection that very briefly mentions other oxidation states, and an introductory text that precedes all of these (probably mostly talking about a transition metal character in those compounds), and finally a subsection on organochromium compounds. Organometallic chemistry is vastly different from usual inorganics, so it needs a separate discussion. When you describe Cr(III), for instance, try to focus not only on the compounds themselves but rather on chromium as well; first two paragraphs of the subsubsection on Cr(III) are good. The part on Cr(VI) is a little excessive; I'll talk more about that and all other aspects later. I will only note that the current introductory text on the entire section is redundant as that partially should be described in the previous section (for instance, the electron configuration) or later (you can focus on the multiple oxidation states in the part on inorganic chemistry). A subsection dedicated exclusively to passivation is excessive when you're about to have an a few paragraphs long discussion on reactivity in general, but parts of it may be used to write the said discussion.disregard this for now, this is an important topic for this particular element and we'll need to think how to describe this best rather than shoot from the hip--
R8R (
talk)
12:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Quick comment: of course, you can refer to Lead#Chemistry in case you want to see beforehand what the result with my suggestions implemented will look like. The article will work fine as an example for most other sections as well, and for those sections that won't match the analogous sections in lead (for instance, History), I will try to provide other examples to look at before you start or while you work. The stories of lead's and chromium's chemistry, despite their actual differences (for instance, lead in a main-group element, while chromium is a transition metal), are quite similar: both elements have two main oxidation states, one being more stable than the other; both passivate in the air and have more-or-less similar reactivities; both have some organometallic chemistry, and those are what makes up a section on chemistry of most metals. (A section on chemistry of, say, potassium would be much different.)-- R8R ( talk) 12:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
To split the discovery of the element into the pigment and element section does not reflect the reality. Even the first analysis was done in a way that it was to detect a new element and not to analyse it for the use as pigment. There is no real indication that the lead chromate was used as pigment at that time at all. -- Stone ( talk) 10:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
(This is meant to be a single header for the sections Biological role and Precautions as the whole common topic of biological/environmental properties allows for various structures, so let's see later what suits chromium best)
(The lead section is meant to summarize the content of the article, so of course I have to take a deeper look on the content in question first)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
There has been a whole lot of work done on the Chromium article to get it prepared to become a Featured Article Candidate, and there is still a whole lot more work that needs to be accomplished. Many of the frequent editors have a good idea about the direction that this article needs to follow to get it to FAC, but we would love to hear the opinions of other editors about what work still needs to be done here.
Thanks, UtopianPoyzin ( talk) 12:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Before we begin, I'd like to suggest you separate the part on occurrence into its own section: a proper discussion on occurrence will include a talk on chromium in space, and that deserves a subsection of its own. Also, it would allow you to focus this section on physical properties, for which you need three subsections: a subsection on atomic properties (nano-scale properties defined by the electron shell), bulk (macro-scale) properties, and isotopes (nuclear properties). See Lead#Physical properties for an example of how that would work. Also, passivation is a chemical process, and if it deserves a dedicated subsection, it should be located in the section of chemical properties, even though you can obviously mention it in the preceding section on physical properties (probably in the subsection on bulk properties).
Remark on lead
I will probably often refer to lead as to an example of how things can/should be done. This is my most recent FA so far, and it exemplifies what kind of an article I could write. My articles have previously been described as informative and easy to read by readers, so that should be a good thing. Also, not only is it an FA, but it has also been published in Wikipedia's own journal (which means it underwent an even tougher review than FAC, and the review was really helpful). I suggest you give the article a read; most sections could be rewritten following analogous sections in it as an example. As I review the article, I will try to explain what exactly that means for this particular article.-- R8R ( talk) 12:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
My best general advice I can give you is: always think about your reader. Imagine what kind of information your reader would want from this article. If something is unclear to you, then it will certainly be unclear to some readers, so you will certainly go good by finding out whatever was unclear to you and explaining it in the article, possibly in a note rather than the main text.
Also, speaking of notes: while you are not required to use them, don't be afraid to do so as they can be really beneficial to your writing. For instance, check notes in lead: that's how it can work, adding both interesting facts to your story or explaining the ones you already have.
Another piece of advice: more is fine as long as it's not in the final version. If you are unsure whether something is important enough to be added in the article, go ahead and add it for now; you'll see if you need it later. If the section is obviously too long, you can copy its contents to a subarticle, which will make the job of trimming the section in the main article much easier. This is how the history of aluminium started, for instance. (Speaking of which, could you revisit the FAC?)
Quick note: the plural form of "μm" is still "μm." This is a symbol, not a word, so it does not need pluralization. The same is certainly true for all metric units and IIRC for all U.S. customary units as well (I've seen "lbs" but that's incorrect).-- R8R ( talk) 13:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's get to the section now. You essentially need to write this anew (let's deal with the Isotopes part later) as you only have two sentences. It is better to start off with atomic properties as it is macro properties that are defined by the atomic ones, not vice versa. (You could continue this line of thinking by saying that most properties are defined by the 24-electron shell, which has precisely 24 electrons because the nucleus has 24 protons and thus the section should begin with a subsection on Isotopes, but it's up to you. Unlike the electron shell properties, which are easy to link to the macro properties, I haven't found a way to naturally interlink the nuclear and the electron shell properties (apart from the fact there are both 24 protons and electrons), and interlinking is the best thing in an article, when a reader gets there is A, and then B follows from A, and then С follows from A and B, etc.; you may remember I recommended a section order based on this as well.)
So given that, your section should start with a talk on the atom, something like "A chromium atom has 24 electrons arranged in the electron configuration [Ar]3d54s1." This configuration is one of the most iconic exceptions to the Aufbau principle, so you should mention that and explain why it is the case. The usual explanation is that the half-filled subshell is somehow more stable, but here's a rebuke to that. What immediately follows from that configuration? For lead, it was the relativistic effects; for chromium, it is the fact that the element is located in the first transition series. In turn, that leads to.. well, that's up to you. For instance, lead's most notable characteristic is its density, that's what the element is best known for with most people. Chromium's, perhaps, is its shininess. Explain why the metal is so shiny. See Relativistic quantum chemistry#Color of gold and caesium for how a similar question is treated. Another implication must be the magnetic order, which you can now mention on the atomic scale and set stage for the macro scale magnetic properties. Probably you could talk about the unit cell of chromium. Maybe you could mention that the metallic bonding in chromium is provided by three electrons. You could mention that the atomic and ionic radii contract throughout the 3d series. I suggest you start off with something of your choice and see how it works.
(Why I don't give direct suggestions and rather leave something up to you is because I've learned to think that everyone should be allowed to write in their own style, rather than uniform. That is why we have WP:ENGVAR, for instance. This is also why I suggested we don't re-structure titanium and zinc even though I find their structures worthy of some improvement.)-- R8R ( talk) 10:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, I don't have an immediate recipe for success or else my own writing would be done in fewer edits. But as it often happens, it's best to try everything you find worthy of trying and then leave the best. It's also engaging once you get to do it. That was why I suggested different things for the Atomic subsection. I probably will continue this fashion later. The article is not (yet) in a near-FA state when you already have the text and have now to polish it by adding small missing parts and removing superfluous ones (probably save for the biological sections); we (well, you, unless you ask for direct help) have yet to write the text.-- R8R ( talk) 15:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've given it some more thought and decided it could be great to mention chromium's shininess in the section on chemistry even though it's a physical phenomenon: all metals are shiny (we can describe why that is in one phrase and leave a suggestion to the reader to read an external source if they want to know more) and it's chromium's passivation that helps preserve that shininess. I, however, am faced with the question: why is chromium (like aluminum) shiny even after passivation but lead isn't? We definitely should figure it out and see from there.
The section on bulk properties probably doesn't need much commentary. Lead#Bulk is great and you'll do fine by just copying it. Maybe you only need to mention magnetism as well since the article claims it is remarkable (for which you should pave the road in the Atomic subsection).
The subsection on isotopes claims that there are three stable isotopes while the infobox says there are four. Which one do I believe?
(More on the Isotopes subsection later.)-- R8R ( talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Is Cr-50 stable or not? The present state of the article doesn't let me make a definite conclusion. Either way, it is certainly stable for any practical purpose, so you should group it with the stable isotopes. The only difference would be that if it is actually radioactive (i.e., it has been observed to decay) you'd say chromium is composed of four isotopes but only three of these are truly stable and one is practically stable but actually decay with an extraordinarily long half-life and the most stable radioactive isotope other than Cr-50 is ... If Cr-50 has only been theorized but not observed to decay, you should say there are four observationally stable isotopes but one of these may actually decay with these characteristics of the decay. More soon, hopefully tonight.-- R8R ( talk) 09:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The first and the third paragraphs certainly should be merged.-- R8R ( talk) 23:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
At best, you should have an idea of what your result is going to look like before you start. If you're not sure, it's fine to just go for it and try to figure out in the process, but if it is helpful to know what you're aiming for beforehand. I suggest this structure of this section: you start off with a few words on reactivity of chromium metal, then follows a subsection on inorganic compounds, divided into a subsubsection on Cr(III), a subsubsection on Cr(VI), a subsubsection that very briefly mentions other oxidation states, and an introductory text that precedes all of these (probably mostly talking about a transition metal character in those compounds), and finally a subsection on organochromium compounds. Organometallic chemistry is vastly different from usual inorganics, so it needs a separate discussion. When you describe Cr(III), for instance, try to focus not only on the compounds themselves but rather on chromium as well; first two paragraphs of the subsubsection on Cr(III) are good. The part on Cr(VI) is a little excessive; I'll talk more about that and all other aspects later. I will only note that the current introductory text on the entire section is redundant as that partially should be described in the previous section (for instance, the electron configuration) or later (you can focus on the multiple oxidation states in the part on inorganic chemistry). A subsection dedicated exclusively to passivation is excessive when you're about to have an a few paragraphs long discussion on reactivity in general, but parts of it may be used to write the said discussion.disregard this for now, this is an important topic for this particular element and we'll need to think how to describe this best rather than shoot from the hip--
R8R (
talk)
12:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Quick comment: of course, you can refer to Lead#Chemistry in case you want to see beforehand what the result with my suggestions implemented will look like. The article will work fine as an example for most other sections as well, and for those sections that won't match the analogous sections in lead (for instance, History), I will try to provide other examples to look at before you start or while you work. The stories of lead's and chromium's chemistry, despite their actual differences (for instance, lead in a main-group element, while chromium is a transition metal), are quite similar: both elements have two main oxidation states, one being more stable than the other; both passivate in the air and have more-or-less similar reactivities; both have some organometallic chemistry, and those are what makes up a section on chemistry of most metals. (A section on chemistry of, say, potassium would be much different.)-- R8R ( talk) 12:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
To split the discovery of the element into the pigment and element section does not reflect the reality. Even the first analysis was done in a way that it was to detect a new element and not to analyse it for the use as pigment. There is no real indication that the lead chromate was used as pigment at that time at all. -- Stone ( talk) 10:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
(This is meant to be a single header for the sections Biological role and Precautions as the whole common topic of biological/environmental properties allows for various structures, so let's see later what suits chromium best)
(The lead section is meant to summarize the content of the article, so of course I have to take a deeper look on the content in question first)