Talk:Lead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleLead is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 27, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2012Good article nomineeListed
February 27, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 5, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

A guide on how to add a reference to this article and fall in line with the general referencing style
  1. Write a reference as you usually would in a template that is most appropriate for your reference: {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite report}}, or any other template of this series, preceded by an asterisk for the bullet list. Please use |first1=, |last1=, |first2=, |last2=, etc.; also, please add |displayauthors=3 if there are more than three authors (alternatively, add only three authors and then add |displayauthors=etal). Finish your reference template by |ref=harv. Please use initials instead of complete first names, the shorter range notation for page numbers except when the two number differ only in the last digit (1234–5678; 1234−567; 123–45; however, 123–24), and the mdy date format ("January 1, 1970"). Add author links if possible (via |authorlink=).
  2. Do not add it not in the text, enclosed by <ref></ref> tags; add to the Bibliography section following the alphabetical order of references. Alphabetical order is set by the first word in the displayed reference text; this will be either the last name of the first author (or the author organization if the author is an organization) or, if no author is present, the title of the referenced work.
  3. Add a {{sfn}} template to the piece of text you want to reference. All parameters are unnamed, except for the |page= parameter (or |pages=, or |p=, or |pp=). Add them in the following order: last names of the first four (or less, if less are provided) authors; year of publication; |page= or analogous parameter.

The following reference should look like this:

  • * {{cite book |last=Emsley |first=J. |authorlink=John Emsley |title=Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements |year=2011 |publisher=Oxford University |isbn=978-0-19-850341-5 |ref=harv}} in the Bibliography section; and
  • {{sfn|Emsley|2011|p=280}} in the text near the claim.

(please do not archive this message; it is a general instruction and is meant to remain untagged)

Outstanding FAC items[edit]

@R8R Gtrs: @Double sharp: @Hawkeye7: @Nergaal: @John: @Isambard Kingdom: @DePiep: @YBG:

Copied from the FAC archive. I hope I have everything. I'm not sure if Hawkeye7 and John had any o/s concerns apart from, in the case of John, a request for a ping once ce had concluded.

Lead[edit]

  • I am pretty sure one of the larger uses of lead is in gigantic capacitors that help stabilize the fluctuations of voltage of electric grids inside cities. Supercapacitor. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Not yet a larger use, but a developing technology, from what I could find. Mentioned in the penultimate para of the Applications/Elemental form section. Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also was noted: "We also don't need to use the respell template on such a common word". That's about LED for pronunciation. I argued keep (since same-spelled 'to lede' has a different pronunciation, and because this does not seem to be an FA issue but more a personal opinion by John). I mention it here for completeness, check. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

isotopes[edit]

  • I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts.
We do the talk at the more relevant section, Origin and occurrence (specifically, the In space part).--R8R (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking something more explicit along the lines of "the stable periodic table" ends at Pb/Bi; everything beyond that will eventually decay. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

where?Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's okay as of now. We say that "with its high atomic number, lead is the second-heaviest element whose natural isotopes are regarded as stable," and that's pretty clear to me. I think that even a school student who would bother to read and understand section would look at the sentence "All heavier elements decay" and say, "well, it's already clear, you already said lead was the second heaviest." --R8R (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

chemistry[edit]

  • what typical test do freshman college courses use to identify lead samples? I can't remember exactly, but there is a standard benchtop test
I have not replied up to this point as I couldn't find it to build an opinion. I still can't. This makes me think it's not a big loss. --R8R (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The closest I can think of is qualitative inorganic analysis (add HCl to precipitate out Pb2+), but that's not for metallic lead. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of, ions of lead. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

where? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Techniques for identifying the presence of the Pb2+ ion in water generally rely on the precipitation of lead(II) chloride via the addition of dilute hydrochloric acid. As the chloride is somewhat soluble in water, the precipitation of lead(II) sulfide, via the addition of hydrogen sulfide, is then attempted."--R8R (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

other ox states[edit]

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how that link got there but I meant to say Galena has really cool looking images. There is nothing cool about boring white powder. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The article has a few cool images indeed, but these are mostly the mineral rather than the compound. We could take the space-filling unit cell model but we already have a few similar pics (though ask for it again and I won't insist).--R8R (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of this: file:Calcite-Galena-elm56c.jpg. Since it is the main common ore, why not have a picture of it that also looks cool? Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Ooooh! That's a swish pic. Done: replaced the boring white powder pic. Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no pic of galena currently - the most common ore of Pb. Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

origin[edit]

  • the table seems a bit random, why were the present entries chosen?
The idea is that all elements are even-numbered; we have mercury as the closest even-numbered element, Th and U, and a few elements of comparable occurrence with a Z of 40--60 to illustrate that lead is indeed quite common for its atomic number.
still seems incredibly random. maybe merge it with the image below it since that one needs a better caption anyways
I adjusted the set of featured elements. Looks better to me now.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I get the >=78 choices, but I don't understand why 42, 46, and 50? why not compare it to other Z magic numbers? Also, looking at Elements_abundance-bars.svg I think it would be really important to say explicitly that it is the most aboundadnt element above Z=56? This would come as a natura conclusion from the fact that all ehavier stuff produced in supernova have decayed to enrich the solar system in Pb. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • is the relative abundance in the crust much different from that in the Solar System? Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I prepared some time ago an introductory sentence for this but apparently didn't add the figure itself. Added it now.--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm missing it. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Both figures are there now. Sandbh (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Image caption should say Pb is rightmost-red spot (image is unreadable without zoom) Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The image is supposed to be read. This is a scheme, they are meant to be read. Besides, I don't understand what you mean. Lead is the middle row (pretty clear from the image itself).--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
the problem I am having is that the image is hard to read at that zoom level, so I thought having a pointer in the caption saying where is Pb on that graph would help. Even something like more common than all the elements with Z > ? would help. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "s 0.121 ppb (parts per billion" => so what rough rank does it have among elements? same for in earth, what rough rank? Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

history[edit]

  • Pls add File:Saturn_symbol.svg somewhere, since for the longest time that was practical symbol for lead. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Added to the alchemy section, in Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • why did the pope declare it forbidden? did they base it on toxicological reasons?
Yes. Lead often caused colics. Do you want that in the text?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise it reads incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Not because of the colic but because the wine was regarded as impure. Sandbh (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

what is the problem with impure wine? are you talking about the baptising wine? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh:Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Unsuitable for use in sacred rites. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • what lead compounds were used for whitening faces?
Too many to list, I think. See here--R8R (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think at least White lead should be mentioned. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Done Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Where? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance section, para 2: "Lead, notably in the form of Venetian ceruse, was extensively used in cosmetics by Western European aristocracy as whitened faces were regarded as a sign of modesty." Sandbh (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Outside Europe and Asia" can be merged with previous section
These subtitles were not my invention in first place. I liked the story not being torn apart by headers. Nonetheless, if we do use them, I'd want to keep this one. The reason for that would be the content of this paragraph (lead mining in the Americas, Africa, and Australia) differs from the previous one (lead usage in (mostly) medieval and Renaissance Europe).--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Technically you should mention Ancient Egypt uses of lead in cosmetics. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
We refer to this in the Pre- and early history section: "The Ancient Egyptians were the first to use lead in cosmetics…" Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I see your point. I'll specify it's Sub-Saharan Africa we're talking about.--R8R (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Into the modern era" is a bit too artistic
True. Is it bad though? If so, can you suggest an alternative?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just say "Modern Era" or "In Modern Era". Also, remove The from the previous subtitle. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "ountries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with" when was the first significant program?
Depends on what you define as significant. In my view, that is the White Lead convention, which prompted many European countries to ban lead paints for some applications (Ctrl+F "1930" in the text). You may also think of the following fragment as of the answer: "In the UK, Sir Thomas Morrison Legge became the ®rst Medical Inspector of Factories in 1898. A centralized system of factory inspection had been created under the Factories and Workshop Act of 1878, and Legge did pioneering work to implement the Act". I stand by paints, and we mentioned them.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
add it pls. this could be mentioned in the restriction of lead usage section as a "landmark" towards rolling back its use. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent extract. Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "From 1960 to 1990, lead output in ..." and after is a bit TMI; trim this production part since it is present in the next section
I disagree. First of all, 1990 was over 25 years ago; it is history. Second, it's natural to focus a bit more what is common to the contemporary people. Third, there is actually no overlap that I see. Production does not deal with the 1980s; it deals with the 2010s (i.e., the present as opposed to comparably recent past).--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the first time the text talks about increase of "31%". Up until now it's been only X had largest, Y produced over half, etc. Keep the gist and move extra % to a subarticle. Nergaal (talk)
The idea of percentages is that lead production did not decline despite all the new regulations on it. I put a colon in the end of the previous sentence to demonstrate that.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Somewhere else you said that stuff shouldn't be in this main article. I think exact changes (besides trends) should be left out of the main para. Just trim those sentences to increase by a third in the Western Block and tripling in the eastern Block. However, starting with mid 20th century, China began industrializing and by 2004 became the largest producer. This had negative health effects like in the west. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Fair point. I think Sandbh's changes were good?--R8R (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • has coal burning in plants been a source of worry for lead poisoning? I would be very surprised it it isn't part of the "clean coal" idea
It has, but apparently mercury is the main heavy metal to worry about. Let's get back to this when we reach the section on environment.--R8R (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done, in the Environmental, and Restriction etc sections. Sandbh (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • in reference to the previous point: not sure where to put this, but isn't lead a relatively cheap element (because it is easily concentrated?)? I think it's because of this, lead has had many applications. Maybe mention somewhere that lead has been historically relatively accessible/cheap. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
We say this in the lead: "Lead is easily extracted from its ores…". Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This one is an excellent suggestion. I'll leave it in bold as a reminder for myself until it's done. That's the kind of thing I would absolutely want to make clear.--R8R (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned this and now satisfied with it.--R8R (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

production[edit]

  • "Production and consumption of lead is increasing worldwide (due to its use in lead-acid batteries)" this is so vague
It is meant to be vague. This is the first sentence in the section. We proceed to specifics later.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the parenthesis OR or it's from an actual source? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite added. Sandbh (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The top lead producing countries were " when?
Here's some context:
In 2013, 4.74 million metric tons came from primary production and 5.74 million tons from secondary production. The top mining countries for lead in that year were China, Australia, Russia, India, Bolivia, Sweden, North Korea, South Africa, Poland, and Ireland. The top lead producing countries were China, United States, India, South Korea, Germany, Mexico, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Australia.[143]
Is it really unclear?--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Missed that. But you don't need to give out top10 mining if you have a table. Why not give a production table too and trim the text to only major producers. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought about this. Yet there are two considerations:
We don't have data for miners and producers from the same year. The lists mention data from the same year, 2013, to keep the data listed side-by-side, because listing them side by side implies the reader can compare the two sets, and the comparison is only correct when the data is from the same time range.
The most up-to-date data for mining is from 2015. For production, it's only 2013. Removing the 2013 mining data suggests we run into the problem I described above or lose the option of comparing the two sets. Removing the 2015 mining data means we don't list the newest data we have.
Also, two tables side by side don't look nice. Bringing them into one table could be better, but the sets of countries don't match.
That's why it's the way it currently is.--R8R (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The second table doesn't need to be right in the same place. I suggest having it in the section before. Different year is fine. The image is nice, but might as well add a table with numbers too. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agreed with R8R, and with some trimming believe I've mitigated the need to do any more work here. Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the global per capita stock of lead in use " annual?
What do you mean, "annual stock"?--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I misunderstood that. It is trying to say the total lead amount divided by the world population is 8 kg / person, but it is said in a pretty convoluted manner. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, I hope. Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "a very low percentage of lead," is lead mined as a primary or a secondary ore?
In galena, lead is the primary metal. In basically any other mineral lead is obtained from -- secondary.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess my question here is similar to the one below: is the ore mined for lead primarily, or for a set of metals where lead is secondary? since lead is pretty cheap I have hard time imagining they mine the ore for the lead primarily. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
From reading Ullmann's and Kirk-Othmer, there is nothing in these sources suggesting that lead is obtained as a secondary metal. It's traded on the London Metal Exchange, which is no small achievement. It actually costs more per tonne than aluminium. I would've laughed if you'd have said this to me, and done my money. Ullmann's notes that copper byproducts of lead ores are passed to specialized smelters, supporting the notion that Pb is mined for Pb. Kirk-Othmer says that lead is a rare metal but the occurrence of concentrated and easily accessible lead ore deposits is unexpectedly high, and that these are widely distributed through the world, which I guess makes primary lead extraction economical. They also say while concentrations of impurities may be tolerable for some lead applications, the market values encourage separation and recovery. Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a very unexpected find. I suggest mention the rough price of the metal in the production section, and say it is about X or more than X. Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • the text almost implies that Pb is produced more of as a by-product of sulfuric acid and Au/Ag production chain. am I wrong? how much of the bottomline $ do these other products represent
I don't see why you think so but I'll leave this for now to think about it. I believe percentages are beyond the scope of the article.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
my thought here is there a "producer or lead" or the producer makes something and also recovers lead to increase profit? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at the text but, like R8R, was unable to see why you think so. See also my response to your previous question. Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "silica fluoride" should be linked
Nothing to link to, but I spelled out the formula.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
who cals SiF6 2- a silica fluoride? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe this is fixed since we only now talk about lead fluorosilicate. Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

biological[edit]

  • "The main target for lead toxicity in humans is the central nervous system." then "The primary cause of lead's toxicity is its predilection for interfering with the proper functioning of enzymes."
From what I understand, there is no contradiction here.--R8R (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
you mean the enzymes in the second sentence are in CNS or in general? if the latter it reads weird. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Does this lot still look weird? Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Restriction of lead usage" should have more dates on first ban examples; also, when were lead pipes banned since even in colonial US they seem to be in use
Nobody said anything about banning lead pipes in the U.S. They were, however, subjected to closer attention and government-approved anticorrosion measures. See Lead and Copper Rule.
As for more dates: what dates are we missing?--R8R (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Like first state/place in the world that banned leaded gasoline? or leaded paint? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. It appears that lead in paint was first phased out for interior used by NLT than 1930. We say in the Modern Era section: "Most European countries banned usage of lead paint—commonly used to this point because of its opacity and water resistance[128]—for interiors by 1930." Leaded gas was first phased out, but only for a few years, in some US cities in the 1920s. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • are there any plans for lead cleanup? where is lead waste being dumped? -- Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Mentioned in the Environmental, and Restriction of lead usage sections. Sandbh (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "[lead in the] human body is exceeded only by iron and zinc. " should add an average number of mg an average adult has in their body. also, is this problematic in cremations? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. On cremations, it seems not: "Overall, even with the use of fossil fuels as a heat source, cremation contributes very little to atmospheric, water or soil pollution by metals such as mercury, lead or cadmium; or by green house gases such as carbon dioxide." http://faculty.virginia.edu/metals/cases/huffman1.html
  • some images from lead poisoning might be worthwhile adding here -- Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I had a look but I tend to think we have the best image from there already, noting we don't have much room left in this section. Sandbh (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite added at end of Effects section. Sandbh (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

reference formatting[edit]

  • For the Standard atomic weight source the infobox now says "Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW)." R8R Gtrs strongly suggested to leave out the acronym, while I'd keep it in for recognisability. While we are at it, I also am using/introducing, preformatted, this.[1] It is the formal publication.
What is best, both article-wide style and our all-elements style citing? -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meija, J.; et al. (2016). "Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 88 (3): 265–91. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0305.
I am against a WikiProject-wide formatting. Standardization in each one article is reasonable and desired, but this does not need to be standardized throughout articles. We're not a journal, after all.--R8R (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sit rep[edit]

@Nergaal:@Double sharp:@R8R Gtrs:

Hi Nergaal, I believe I've addressed all of your outstanding concerns.

R8R Gtrs, as you would've seen from the FAC chat, I had finished the copy-edit requested by John. Oh, and I've rechecked Hawkeye7's original comments, and I see you had addressed all of these.

So, there it is. We should now check some of the other comments raised at WP FAC talk. I'll also take this opportunity to recheck a few fine points that I noticed in the article in the course of addressing Nergaal's comments. Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

more[edit]

I'll list anything not mentioned yet.

  • {{cn}} tags; except for one, but we have it separately below
  • new production from Ullmann;
  • reference correctness;
  • anything else?

--R8R (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added, late:
  • #Lead (lede/infobox): keep/reject respell "LED" (From FAC, John)
I think we'll keep it; John said it wouldn't make him oppose the nomination
I don't know; pending more opinions?--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

--DePiep (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  • when ready, ask John to have a look before we go back to FAC
I'll strike this one: John is already here--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • check with Nergaal, and other WP Elements active members re whether they could indicate their support (conditional or unconditional)
This is sort of the last thing chronologically that we will do. Could even do shortly after the FAC begins. This won't influence the progress towards a new FAC.--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • who will do the renomination?
Personally, I don't find this important. Whoever expresses the desire to do so.--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • no co-nominations. Once person nominates; the other person supports.
I understand; yet I can't help but laugh here.
Generally, if I was not to nominate the article, could I support it as I had done much work here (I am leaning towards no)? Same question for you.--R8R (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you could. Your opinion counts as much as anyone else's. The guidelines say if someone other than the lead editor is the nominator then that person should consult with the lead editor before doing so. If the nomination goes ahead you are effectively indicating your support and, IMO, are entitled to say so. For me this is somewhat moot since I expect I'd nominate my own FA candidates. Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • the last sentence of each paragraph has to end with a citation except for one case, see next point
  • fix citation required for surma/antimony

-- Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have in fact never ever seen a reference for the fact as it is in the article now, but there are smaller facts that could be referenced that sum up into the sentence we have.
We can quote how this word "surma" comes from AD ~3000 from South Asia and how those modern languages of a clearly later origin (Tajik, Mongolian, Russian, etc.) have the same word as well. Perhaps it's also easy to find they borrowed it from a different language. The Russian word comes from either Crimean Tatar or Turkish word for "kohl," for example.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I see this section has been deleted for the time being, which is what I had in mind for it. Sandbh (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
"The originally South Asian surma—"galena" in English—spread across Asia with that meaning, and gave its name to antimony in a number of Central Asian languages, and in Russian.[citation needed]" -- I am referring to this sentence; as of now, it's still in the article.--R8R (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh! I was looking in the wrong section. Sandbh (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, that one's fixed, and I even managed to add some Russian to it. Sandbh (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: How's the list of things needing to be done looking now? Sandbh (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw a while ago that I'd been pinged but I have come to no longer look for pings as I find them in my watchlist edits anyway. I'll change my habits so that pings work as expected.
I'll check the list shortly.--R8R (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

missed?[edit]

  • so where is the explanation for plumbum? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reconstructed the old section which had a little more material (more text is also good there so that I don't have too much white space because of the {{-}} template at the end of that section). However, I think that will be there should be enough. This is English Wiki and I think we should stick to English.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Dude, what does Pb mean? Nergaal (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a short extract from the mentioned newly re-added text: "This word is related to the Latin plumbum, which gave the element its chemical symbol Pb." Is the current text not enough?--R8R (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@R8R Gtrs: Do you understand now why I asked origin/etymology of plumbum to be explained? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
In all honesty, not quite. Why?--R8R (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Plumbum gave the symbol Pb. There isn't another word for the origin of the symbol itself. Therefore, the etymology for the origin of the chosen symbol is, for all intended purposes, as relevant as the etymology of name of the element itself. . Nergaal (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. We had that actually back then too (in a note), so I thought it would be something else. Nonetheless, I'm glad we figured it out.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • still not really happy with the X-ray uses explanation. Asides from price, what makes Pb better than say Al or Bi? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll look for a good answer.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It's good that you asked for it. I now know why (see Lead shielding and this site). To be added.--R8R (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I added what The Naked Scientists say about it. Despite the saucy name, they are actually run or supported by Cambridge, so this must be okay as a a source.--R8R (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Lead has no biological role" => maybe say no proven bio role? I remember somewhere people guessing it could have functions. Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Well spotted. Done.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • is lead of any worry in fish? if yes/no, how does this compare to Hg? and why? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll look for it.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
A brief look into this yielded the following results:
  • Mercury is the most concerning element of all for a specific reason. According to doi:10.1016/j.envint.2013.05.005, "Mercury is an element of special concern because its inorganic form is biologically transformed in aquatic environments into methylmercury (MeHg), a lipophilic organic compound that bioaccumulates and biomagnifies as it moves up the aquatic food chain (Carrasco et al., 2011; Gewurtz et al., 2011; Jaeger et al., 2009). As a result, human populations with a traditionally elevated dietary intake have the highest potential exposure to MeHg and are at an increased risk for developing neurotoxic effects. This is a particularly important issue for children, pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers (Jedrychowski et al., 2007; Ramón et al., 2008, 2011)." This makes me want to restrain from comparing mercury to lead in the body (again, because this is an overview article on lead and the complete explanation is more about mercury than lead).
  • According to the same article, most species have low median amounts of lead. So low that most samples had levels below the level of detection. There is one fish species that had a high amount of lead in it but a detailed analysis shows that it must be due to geographical reasons. However, "despite these low concentrations, twenty fish and five crustacean samples (5.15% of the total samples studied) exceeded the ML set by the EC for both foodstuffs."
  • According to this book, lead accumulates in bones and soft tissues are not particularly affected. Only nearby industrial waters affect this.
  • The same book says the primary source of lead contamination is the content of lead in seawater.
I have yet to think if this all is worth a mention and if so, what should be highlighted.--R8R (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nergaal: I just checked and it seems to me there is no proper place in this article as it currently is for this to fit in nicely. I am open to suggestions, though; do you think we should add it and if so, where?
  • I am still surprised how come there is soo much Pb in the body. How come there is so much of it, instead of say Cu, or other 3d metals that are way more aboundant? Is it more volatile compounds therefore get inside the body more? I am sure we use other heavy metals way more than Pb, so I still have a hard time understanding how come so much gets into the body.
I'll look for it.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If I remember that correctly, the problem is that lead that comes into the body stays in it for a long time (we mention something about lead mimicking calcium and being stored in bones). I'll check that and add to the main text whenever I can.--R8R (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the reason is that Pb bioaccumulates. W is about as common, but doesn't stay in the body very long (which is good; if not it might cause problems, since Mo is just above it and is essential). Even Th is not so bad, since most of it just passes through you (the problem is that the little that stays keeps throwing off alphas). Hg and Tl are like Pb in that they stay in you, but are rarer, so they don't show up as commonly. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I see we essentially had it there already, but I reworded it to make this thesis clearer nonetheless.--R8R (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I left comments above to where I thought there might still be work needed. Nergaal (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. I'll look for answers to your questions later. (I want to say this will happen soon but I may be busy until April.)--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • One more: we need to clarify what "submerged fuel combustion or injection" is.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Or do we? All words are understandable to an English speaker and there's no unusual meaning here.--R8R (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maintain the new referencing style: a few new refs stand out.--R8R (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments re copyedit[edit]

@Dank: First and foremost, I am grateful for you taking your time. This has been actually helpful so far (it's not just blind politeness, I actually mean it) and pointed me at the text again.

    • Glad to hear it. First off: I did a bad job with some of my edits, sorry about that. In general, reviewers and FAC coords are looking for responses on the review page itself (and I often don't watchlist the article), but I'm happy to reply here. - Dank (push to talk)

I've got some minor issues. I can't fit all of these in an edit summary, so I'll describe it for now and we'll see tomorrow what we should do about it, if that's okay.

  • "How about this?" The phrase "Lead has 82 protons" is redundant since we've had a reference to the "lead's atomic number of 82". The atomic number shows how many protons there are in element's nuclei; this practically defines a chemical element. So if an atom has 82 protons, then it's a lead atom. If more or less, then it's a different element. (For example, oxygen has 8, aluminum has 13, iron has 26, and so forth.) If you think we should specify this somehow, I gladly will, as I generally like having my texts accessible to most people.
    • Aware of this; I had tunnel vision and missed the "82" in the preceding sentence. I gave it another whack.
  • "especially stable nucleus" -- (note to self) shortly mention in a note what's so special about this stability
  • "Very few organolead(II) compounds are known, even when starting with inorganic lead(II) reactants." -- it reads like an incomplete sentence, doesn't it? I mean, I understand it, but still?
    • Fixed I hope.
  • "gave its name to antimony (сурьма) in Russian." Russian is cool, but the point is that Russian is just one of examples, and there are more. The text used to say something like "in a number of Central Asian languages as well as Russian," but it's hard to find a cool reference for this without having to cite dictionaries on these individual languages, so I decided to keep the largest language (in terms of native speakers); still, there are more.
    • Reverted.
  • "potentially knocking it out from its atom" -- I see why you removed it from there; can't blame you for doing so. The thing is, however, there once was an explanation on why this is important. The high atomic number of lead ensures that many electrons will be too hard to be kicked away. It requires some fixed for each atom and electron amount of energy to remove the electron from its atom; the electron can't absorb more than the energy required to kick it out (let's put it this way). Lead is difficult takes so much energy to get an electron kicked away that its one of its electrons (this applies not to all of them, but to many) can actually absorb all of this energy while still remaining in the atom. This whole energy absorption is important because radioactivity is basically too densely concentrated energy (that's a radical simplification, too, but let's put it this way) and that's what makes it so dangerous. I'm leaving this as a note to self to get it back in.--R8R (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The paragraph is: "The high density and atomic number of lead, combined with its relatively low cost, malleability, and low melting point, helped establish it as a radiation shielding material. A gamma ray, for example, can be absorbed by an electron. The high density of lead means that lead atoms are densely packed and the electron density is high; the high atomic number means there are many electrons per atom. In its molten form, it has been used as a coolant for lead-cooled fast reactors." The point of this paragraph is that lead can absorb a lot of gamma rays. The point you're making seems like a separate point, one that might make more sense in a note or another paragraph.
    • I saw what happened in the last FAC and didn't want that to happen again. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I reconsidered the need and I think the text is good now as a brief description.--R8R (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Era[edit]

I thought it was too subtle an issue to be even bothered with, but apparently with these reverts and re-reverts we could have a discussion. I myself used "BC" originally (unaware of the "BCE" connotation) and wrote it this way. Then it was hinted at me during the second FAC we could use BCE instead in a science article like this one. I learned the acronym and decided it was indeed more appropriate for us in a natural science article to use "BCE". Today, CouncilConnect traced this back to the olden days and set up the old dating system again.

I believe we should decide this in a civil manner. WP:ERA says, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless [emphasis added] there are reasons specific to its content." Also, that same rule says, "BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas." (So this hints generally that BCE/CE seem to be reasonable here.) But most importantly, it was me who undid my own actions and I support the change; hardly anyone is offended by it and we lose zero information.

The rule suggests a discussion before a change, which I am initiating. @CouncilConnect, DePiep, and Mevagiss:--R8R (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The change was discussed, in the FAC2 (see 'Other') no less. The BCE notation therefor is genuinely accepted & is part of its FA status version. I suggest someone could revert to the R8R/FA version. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There was no justification for changing the era status during FA process as this is quite irrelevant to the quality of the article. There is no reason to change to using BCE if "some texts" do, as many texts (and the vast majority of chemistry texts) do not. Two months ago is not the "olden days". Opinions and preferences are not excuses for changing the era setting. It is not more appropriate in a natural science article as there are NO reasons within its content that could possibly impinge on the choice of era convention. The WP:ERA is clear that it should be left as it was originally--CouncilConnect (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It was discussed, there is a good reason. I don't see why a FAC would only cover "quality of the article" (not "being stable" for example); this is an argument you just made up. The editors involved in the FAC clearly found consensus about this. Natural science is culturally neutral. Don't know where you got the "older days" quote from, but in science this can refer to centuries old texts. It is not up to you to reopen a discussion (by questioning its content) that concluded correctly & with consensus. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Twice CouncilConnect reverted only referring only to WP:ERA as the "original era setting" [1], [2]. Mevagiss did the same [3]. Now that it was pointed out the the required discussion did take place, CouncilConnect is putting up a crippled and post-consensus argumentation. Mevagiss did not return, so far. In short: the discussion is not (and cannot be) invalidated this way. -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The first use of an era abbreviation appears to date back to 2008, in this edit, when User:Stone used the BC notation. If so, BC should presumably remain so? Sandbh (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That was the point brought in by CouncilConnect and Mevagiss, per WP:ERA. However, in the FAC2, 'Other' discussion consensus was reached to change into BCE. This too is per WP:ERA. But now, after-conclusion and after its FA promotion, CouncilConnect tries to invalidate that discussion with newly constructed arguments here. Sure that is not good process. -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and exists to provide a free, high-quality resource for its readers. The decision was made a long time ago to switch to BCE on article quality grounds. I can't remember if I was part of that discussion, but I support it. Lead is a culturally neutral topic and predates Christianity. I support retaining BCE as the peer-reviewed consensus version. --John (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There is and was no good reason to substitute BCE for BC, whatever the discussion, because there are no objective reasons for doing so. It is to stay as it was originally set. It's as simple as that.--Mevagiss (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Er, no. That isn't how it works. --John (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, not at all. See WP:ERA clearly recognizing the possibility of such arguments: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." Notice that John referred to the content as to the reason for this change, as well as I do. The rule itself recognizes this argument: "BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas."--R8R (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Mevagiss "whatever the discussion" you say? Are you serious? Orr are you just trying to post-argue while you initially did not know about that discussion? -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose reasons given are specious as BCE is irrelevant to science topics. Other articles on elements such as Gold, Mercury and Tin use the BC, obviously because no one is convinced by any reason to change. Lead is to stay as it was and stay in step with other articles.--CouncilConnect (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Please also do not call a suggestion from one editor that was then carried out by another, a consensus. That is described by a different word. Thank you.--CouncilConnect (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to "oppose", CouncilConnect. The discussion is not reopened, or redone. The discussion was closed & concluded as part of a FAC. Also, I again ask you why you didn't change your opinion in this after you were notified of that discussion. And wrt the other elements you mention: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, that is exactly an example of a consensus---in this case, a consensus between two editors. (The other editor that carried out the change---myself---stated he approved that.)--R8R (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
CouncilConnect once more reverted, now saying "no consensus demonstrated" [4]. Another argument shift. CouncilConnect, this is going to look like edit warring. The fact that you did not know about or did not look for the discussion is no reason at all. I strongly suggest you undo this revert (i.e., back into "BCE") to comply with the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Flint[edit]

Should we mention Flint and the lead water crisis somewhere on here? BorisTheOversizedSpider (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

We used to have Flint water crisis in See also; we used to have many links there but now they're gone (I don't remember why). Feel free to add the link there if you want to.--R8R (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons[edit]

The file c:File:Swarovski flacon.JPG has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: All these jewels are very probably copyrighted to the artists that created them. We need an authorisation by Swarovski to publish them. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC).