Opening paragraph: "although excess molybdenum can be toxic in some animals". This phrase seems a bit redundant (although appearing in many other articles also) given that too much of any substance is toxic. Maybe a bit pedantic to make the point but if this is a Scientific based article then i'm sure accuracy should be aspired too. N.B The last sentence is not a call for any grammatical errors on my part to be brought to attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The MSDS cited by the article (rembar.com) claims Mo is nontoxic, but the ORNL reference and an MSDS from CERAC (another Mo supplier) both show it's toxic, especially in powdered form. If someone has data to refute these, please Be Bold :-), and also please add an explanation here for the rest of us. The ORNL page can be misleading if you only pick out occasional sentences. Mwistey (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The quoted phrase is actually tautological. Presumably "excess" means "more than is good for you". g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Molybdenum is HARD it is machinable but is comparable to machining hardened 1040 steel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
um the world book encyclopedia describes molybdenum as being "hard" rather than "soft". I have found some contradiction of whether it is soft or hard in numerous websites. could someone please confirm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
I linked the statement about abundance in the Earth's crust to the corresponding article and went to do the same for the oceanic abundance, but there appears to be a discrepancy. In this article we have it as the 25th most abundant in the oceans, whilst Abundances of the elements (data page)#Sea water (I presume "sea water" and "oceans" are synonymous?) has it as 42nd most abundant. Am I wrong in my assumption that these are measuring the same thing or is one of the articles in error? danno_uk 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The current article states that "The Germans also used molybdenum-doped steel for heavy artillery, like in the super-heavy howitzer Big Bertha,", but, according to the reference  in the french article on this point , it seems that it was only a wrong tip during the war, and Bertha had actually no steel with molybdenum.
Unfornutaly, I was not able to locate other reference, to confirm or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)