Talk:Boron group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Boron group was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Elements (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Odysseus1479, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 August 2011. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

OK, who's copying who? I just found almost the exact same entry as this one (word for word) here http://experts.about.com/e/b/bo/Boron_group.htm . It doesn't *seem* to come from here like Answers.com does. Anyone know? --Stretch 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's GFDL license allows anybody to mirror its content, provided proper attribution is given. Femto 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I never noticed the attribution down the bottem --Stretch 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Change in Class[edit]

I changed the class because it seems big and good enough to be a start class article. If anyone has any objections, feel free to post under here. --Geo7777 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Objection: there are too many web-based sources, and most of these aren't that reliable (wiki.answers.com). There's very little actually useful content for now. I'll change it back first (but don't worry, because I'm thinking of getting this to at least C-class first). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about now? i added 9 non web-based sources and i added an 'isotopes' section and i just finished working on the 'history' section. plus, I included a table. please reply. --Geo7777 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is much better. I'm promoting it. Thanks! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's getting nice! About the table: there's also InH[1], add it please :) and also, why not use this format:
Element Oxide Hydride Maybe more, what about fluorides,
chlorides or sulfides?
Boron its oxide all hydrides
Aluminium, so on
  1. ^ (Russian)Bleshinsky, S. V.; Abramova, V. F. (1958). Химия индия. Frunze. p. 301. 

BTW, I'm not sure referencing level depend on Start-classness (think of a better expression?) If really so, take a look on lawrencium, because it may be therefore still a Stub--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And also, I'd like to have refs on neutral elements(IV) hydrides, as well as TlO2 (a superoxide?) and all element 113 compounds--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Uut compounds, I think, are webelements.com speculation. While they certainly are plausible, there don't seem to be solid references for them. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am beginning to work on the article and make the changes you suggested. But you might need to go over the spelling and grammar, I'm not very good at that. --Geo7777 (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I managed to do that, but I wish that I could find more references and especially for the table. I'll look for them later. --Geo7777 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You could take alkali metal as an (admittedly not perfect) model, in case you want to improve it further to GA. Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs comments[edit]

Too little too late, still some comments to make the article better:

  • Electronic table isn't put in the lead right. Move it down the article. Yes check.svg Done
  • "The group has previously also been referred to as the earth metals and the triels, from the Latin tri, three, stemming from the naming convention of this group as Group IIIB." Not reflected in History section. Yes check.svg Done
  • "Boron is considered a metalloid, and the rest are considered metals of the poor metals groups." first of all, "metals of the poor metals groups" sounds weird. What about just "poor metals"? Also, what about ununtrium? It is still not confirmed to be one. Yes check.svg Done
  • "Boron occurs sparsely probably because of disruption of its nucleus by bombardment with subatomic particles produced from natural radioactivity. Aluminium occurs widely on earth and in fact, it is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust (7.4%)." OK, but why no mention of heavier ones? At least that they occur in much lower quantities. Yes check.svg Done
  • I don't like indium picture, it gives little expression of how metals looks. Anything to replace? Yes check.svg Done
    • I found another picture of indium rope in the main article, do you think it is better?
  • "The boron group is notable in its trends and by some of its elements' characteristics. For example, all of the elements in group 13 are silvery-greyish metals or metalloids." Give another example, boron seems to look completely different from the metals. Maybe instead that boron differs from other elements (borides formation, hardness, refractoriness, volatility of BF3 but not AlF3, absence of metallic bonding, so on)? Yes check.svg Done
  • "This is due to a trend that shows that the stability decreases and rarity of compounds increases with hydrogen." No, the trend is due to this, unless some theoretical proof is given.
    • I didn't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that i should reference it? Yes check.svg Done, I decided to take it out completely.
  • "indium oxide (In2O3)" it's indium(III) oxide and it's amphoteric as well. "thallium oxide (Tl2O3)" is thallium(III) oxide. What about In2O and Tl2O? Yes check.svg Done
  • "Fluorine, the first halide" fluorine is a halogen that forms halides :) Yes check.svg Done
  • "It is even hypothesized that ununtrium could form a compound with fluorine, UutF3, before spontaniously decaying due to ununtrium's radioactivity." Proof? Yes check.svg Done, hope that I got it right.
  • "and also hypothetically reacting with element 113." proof? Yes check.svg Done, same as above because i couldn't find a "solid" reference.
  • "Bromine will react too with most elements, although it is less reactive than both chlorine and fluorine." Seems like you're describing bromine, and not group 13 compounds. Yes check.svg Done
  • "Astatine, the heaviest halogen, has only formed a few compounds due to its radioactvity and short half-life so it is extrapolated to have compounds with the metals including the boron group." proof? Yes check.svg Done, same as the other two
  • "Gallium, like aluminium, is a good conductor of heat,[13] almost exactly like indium. Thallium, the heaviest non-synthetic element in the group, is also a good conductor of heat" reword Yes check.svg Done
    • Can you check to see if i reworded it correctly? :)
      Try something like "Boron, being a metalloid, is an insulator at room temperature, but a good conductor at high temperatures. Unlike boron, the metals in the group are good conductors at usual conditions." Just if info on the metals is the same, no need in separate sentences.
  • "The shortest stable isotope, however, is extremely short, being boron's isotope with the least neutrons and a half-life long enough to measure. it is 7B and its half-life is a mere 350±50 x 10−24 s." Is this really needed?
    • I put it in purely for comparasion, because I felt that if we put the isotope with the longest half-life that we should put the shortest one too, but if you feel that it is not needed I can remove it.
  • "This group is special with its isotopes because it contains some of the heaviest stable isotopes ever found. Only lead has a heavier stable isotope." Maybe add that all isotopes with Z>40 are theoretically instable? See stable isotope for details. Also, 115In is not stable. In fact, maybe more contents here? (Maybe not) Yes check.svg Done
    • I will try to add content after.

I'll add more later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I did the easy and quick ones now, I will work on the harder ones (such as finding references) that take longer time later. I appreciate your comments and the time you took to take a look at the article even though you are very busy. By the way, I'm sorry about the fluorine FAC results. But it is still a really good article, and it is a status that this article probably will never get to. Thanks again --Geo7777 (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • "Ununtrium is a synthetic element and thus it is not found in nature." It's vice versa — it's not found in nature but is known to be synthesized, thus "synthetic". Think about it. Yes check.svg Done, though mabye not in the right place.
  • "The real metalloid was not known in its pure form until a thousand years later" confusing. I can't think of constructive criticism, but think more, please. Yes check.svg Done
  • "boric oxide" it's on yours, but why not boron oxide? Yes check.svg Done
  • "Aluminium, like boron, was first known in minerals before it was finally extracted from it." Isn't it true of half the periodic table? Yes check.svg Done
  • "Indium is the fourth element of the boron group and yet was discovered before the third, gallium, and after the fifth, thallium." why not putting them in chronological order? Periodic one is known anyway already by those who read it word by word. Yes check.svg Done
  • Bring spellings (and the whole language) to the same standard. "oxidise" is a British thing, while "synthesize" is American. Also, punctuation, some words and spellings differ. Choose yours. See Differences between American and British English for details. Yes check.svg Done, I skimmed it for other spelling differences and found a few.
  • I think Dubna team should be mentioned first (ununtrium). The thing happened in Dubna anyway. Yes check.svg Done
  • "in America" in United States? And "in" should be replaced with "of the", since it happened in Russia. Maybe reword at all? Yes check.svg Done
  • "Boron is one of the lightest elements with an atomic number of only 5, yet it is almost never found as an free element in nature." Lithium is even lighter, and even more reactive. Helium is even lighter, but not reactive at all. Think of better wording. Yes check.svg Done
  • Article has too many "in fact,"s. Not only here.
  • "Indium, like gallium, is a rare element in the boron group." It's clear already. Just say it's rare, and don't mention gallium. Yes check.svg Done
  • Back to Isotopes: gallium has two stable isotopes; indium-115 may be worth mentioning
  • It's Earth, not earth :) Yes check.svg Done
  • "sis-able" huh? Yes check.svg Done, put as sizeable.
  • "Ununtrium is a synthetic element with no stable isotopes. Therefore, it is never found in nature." Already mentioned in the article, remove? Yes check.svg Done, changed it instead of deleting it.
  • There's a guideline that tells to use approximate number in brackets when the first one is approximate. "(about 5500°F or 3037.77°C)" to "(about 5500°F or 3050°C)" Add   as breaker: 5500 °F. Yes check.svg Done
  • Toxicity section is a way too long para, break it. Yes check.svg Done

I looked through last three sections not very carefully. I won't strike your things, you can deal with it, as I see :) I'll maybe add more. Look for more yourself, and try a peer review once you're done with yourself and my things--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by stone[edit]

The chemistry of the group should be described in a way that what are the common properties, like oxidation state 3+. The increasing stability of oxidation state 1+ and making it the dominant one in thallium. This comparison of the whole group should be done in every section. --Stone (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very sure about what you mean, do you mean that instead of putting it like it is now, we should put it as such: ===oxidation state 1+=== and so on? If you mean that, it will take a long time and almost complete rewriting of it, but I am thinking to put it as a seperate subsection before "halides" and "hydrides" and "oxides", so I hope you think it is okay. Thanks though for taking the time to do see it. :) --Geo7777 (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Comments[edit]

Hi, sorry I won't be able to go on wikipedia that much I'm going to be away much of the time. I will try to fix more of the mistakes but you should probably know that I'm terrible at spelling and also I'm still in school (not graduated) so I may not have enough time for everything but I really find this interesting so I will try as much as possible. Thanks for the comments, they really helped to shape up the article. I will think about doing a peer review but i thought that it was for very developed articles like A-class but i still would be delighted to try it. Thanks :)--Geo7777 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boron group/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Choess (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Unfortunately, the prose issues, in particular, are disqualifying, and they're too great in extent for a quick fix. I'd recommend finding a copyeditor likely to have access to the references (try Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry) and try again when they've given it a thorough going-over. I know this probably feels quite discouraging, but I would like to point out that this is one of the better articles on chemical families in en.wikipedia; I'd place it a little better than alkali metal and second only to noble gas. The underlying material and references are extensive and solid, and with good copyediting, I think it will be in excellent shape.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I'm sorry to say that the prose has significant issues. I can't enumerate every error, but I will try to provide some generalizations and representative examples, mostly from the lead. Run-on sentences: "Boron is considered a metalloid, and the rest are considered poor metals, although ununtrium is not confirmed to be a poor metal yet and might not be due to relativistic effects." Not only should the portion about ununtrium be broken off into a separate sentence, it's phrased in a wordy and ambiguous manner ("might not be" what?). Compare "Ununtrium, however, may not be a poor metal due to relativistic effects." This sort of wordiness is present elsewhere in the lead and article. Why say "...and thus it is termed a synthetic element" when you could simply say "Ununtrium, a synthetic element, is not found in nature?" Don't be afraid to use simple, declarative sentences. Elsewhere in the lead, where you talk about boron, you refer to "bad symptoms" and "can cause many symptoms". That's so vague as to be meaningless. If boron deficiency or overdose does something to the body, say what it is, don't just handwave about "symptoms". On a related note, don't waste time stating obvious generalities at length, e.g., that families in the periodic table have similar electron configurations. Further along in the article, I see more statements made in too many words, and often in a way that suggests conversational rather than formal written English, e.g., "As for thallium, though..." Just say "No stable thallium hydrides have ever been synthesized." Short and to the point. Most of the prose issues fall under these general heads, although the use of "you" should also be mentioned: it's poor encyclopedic style, in my opinion, to address the reader directly in the second person.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The referencing is generally good, to reliable, appropriate scientific sources, but some raise red flags. I would prefer that the cnx.com reference be replaced by the original J. Chem. Phys. article, if in fact that article supports the material in the article. I think a better source could also be found for the names of the elements than innvista or etymonline. Ditto the webelements and thinkquest references; I would think that the Downs reference in the article would cover those points. The "Elements of Faith" reference by Richard Duncan is likely to be highly controversial, and as the fact it supports is quite straightforward, it should be easy to source it to another existing reference. Since a number of these references are to different page numbers in the same work, you might consider breaking the references into "Notes" and "Bibliography" sections, which would make it a bit less ponderous. I don't see any distinct OR, although you might consider dropping the speculation on the biological role of boron unless you have a specific citation for it.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No real complaints. Coverage is decently broad and seems well-balanced.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image licensing checks out. The captions could use some improvement to tie them into the article, e.g., "Boron group" should say something like "Samples of the five stable elements of the boron group." and the zinc blende caption should link the image to the discovery of thallium. Drop the skull and crossbones image, which adds nothing to the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Copy edit[edit]

A few quick remarks about issues encountered while copy-editing:

  • Sensational comments about thallium poisoning were toned down.
  • A couple of the abundance percentages were off by a factor of ten (the source used ppm). While it is nice to have comparable measures all the way down the group, the figures for the rarer elements are awfully small to represent in %.
  • Unless I misread it, the reference cited for the list of top indium producers actually referred to those countries' reserves. Perhaps both the reserves and the production, for each of the elements in the section, should be covered: they're not necessarily correlated.
  • The subheads under Toxicity created rather 'mixed bags' WRT that property, so I removed them, putting the (mostly) non-toxic elements in one paragraph.

Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boron group/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Boron occurs sparsely, probably because bombardment by the subatomic particles produced from natural radioactivity disrupts its nuclei. - I'm not a huge fan of the word "probably" in encyclopediac writing. Also, it's a bit of a Garden path sentence (due to "because bombardment... produced... disrupts").
  • "Aluminum occurs widely on earth, and indeed is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust (8.3%)." - isn't the first portion redundant? The prose could be tightened.
  • "Gallium is found in the earth with an abundance of 13 ppm. Indium is the 61st most abundant element in the earth's crust, and thallium is found in moderate amounts throughout the planet" - you use three different comparisons there (ppm, xth most abundant, and a generic "moderate"). Isn't there a way you could have some consistency? Also, that is the first time you mention ppm, so you should probably spell out the acronym.
  • "Ununtrium is never found in nature and therefore is termed a synthetic element." - IMO (based on what I know about chemistry), that should be switched around. "Ununtrium is a synthetic and therefore is never found in nature," IMO would work better.
  • "Aluminum has neither a biological role nor significant toxicity and is considered safe" - I feel like there's something missing to be desired. Aluminum is used so much in everyday applications, and I think its usage is much more important than just "considered safe".
  • It doesn't appear that the table in "characteristics" is sourced
  • Source for "Another example is B10H14."
    • Ditto "No stable compound of thallium and hydrogen has been synthesized in any laboratory."
    • There is a citation needed tag in "Oxides"
  • Does this part - "The next group-13 elements, aluminum and gallium, form fewer stable hydrides, although both AlH3 and GaH3 exist" - appear in that source about Iridium?
  • What is "amphoteric"?
  • "The only exception to this is thallium(III) iodide" - so is that not in a stable compound? Or is it not a typical covalence bond? How is that an exception, basically?
  • Reference 15 can't cover all of the information before it. It's a journal in 1858, so obviously it couldn't include Uut.
  • By chance, is there a page number for ref 16?
  • "It has been noticed that the elements in the boron group have similar physical properties" - noticed by whom?
  • "although most of boron's are exceptional" - exceptional typically means "unusually excellent", or something like that. I'm assuming you're indicating that Boron is an exception, however (which should be clearer if that is the case).
  • "are pretty reactive" - that is very vernacular
  • "One characteristic that all do have in common is having three electrons in their valence shells" - that is pretty poorly written, having two "have" verbs. In particular, the "do have" is a bit unusual, since you don't use that verb form elsewhere in the article
  • "The inert s-pair effect is significant in the group-13 elements, especially the heavier ones like thallium." - especially isn't a preposition ;)
  • Could you explain the oxidation states? Also, much of that section is unsourced.
  • "Group 13 is notable for including some of the heaviest stable isotopes ever found" - such as?
  • The first paragraph in isotopes is largely unsourced.
  • ""Ununtrium" is a temporary name assigned by the IUPAC (see IUPAC nomenclature), derived from the Latin names of the digits in the number 113." - unsourced
  • "Aluminum is now known" - now known, as opposed to when? It's a bit awkward of a wording
  • "The gallium content is greater in a few minerals, including gallite (CuGaS2), but these are too rare to be counted as major sources and make negligible contributions to the world's supply." - unsourced
  • Similar to the lede, why do you mention Iridium's exact numbering in how rare it is? You don't do the same for any of the previous ones.
  • "Thallium is neither rare nor common in the Earth's crust, but falls somewhere in the middle" - so somewhere in the middle is 56th place, but only five places lower (Iridium) is considered rare? BTW, almost all of Thallium's section is unsourced.
  • Ununtrium is unsourced too.
  • "It is found in humans, certainly as a trace element" - why certainly?
  • "It is, without a doubt, extremely toxic" - that seems rather unencyclopediac.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail the article, namely on the sourcing issues, but also prose problems. Feel free to let me know when you're done if you want another review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Prose needs some work.
  • We need more content on the periodic trends down the group.
  • A properties table and a periodic table highlighting the group 13 elements would also be nice.

Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Also, the reason for boron's rarity should be mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

{{better source}} tag[edit]

I tagged the statement "The pure element has been used as a dopant in semiconductors" as needed a better source, as the source given is published by a "Creation Research" organization. The book contains stuff like:

But there is a type of water that will never be bought or sold: living water. ... Just as physical water is needed for biological life, "living water" is vital for our life and growth as Christians

—Elements of Faith, p7

and much other stuff unsuitable for a reliable source on a chemistry topic. Storkk (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)