Talk:Praseodymium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5 (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by schnee. Elementbox converted 11:00, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:13, 9 July 2005). 9 July 2005

Information Sources[edit]

Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.


Pronunciation[edit]

The pronunciation on the page begins with a 'pra' sound, this does not agree with the infobox where both pronunciations begin with the sound 'pray'. I'm not sure if these are alternatives or one is in error. -- deflective (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Praseodymium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Parcly Taxel (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to the National University of Singapore in August this year to study mathematics. I never lost my love for this project – indeed I'm amazed at how many articles have been lifted to GA status in the recent months, completing the "transperiodic highway" I once bragged about. Once in university I'll have access to the central library where (hopefully) I can find references for my own FA pushes. In the meantime, though, time to review this. Parcly Taxel 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Problems (I corrected them as I moved along)

  • Praseodymium only has one stable isotope, 141Pr, which makes up all of natural praseodymium: hence praseodymium is a mononuclidic element and its relative atomic mass is a constant of nature that can be determined with great precision. This isotope has 82 neutrons and is hence magic, conferring on it additional stability. "great precision" sounds like an exaggeration, and furthermore relative atomic masses do vary between samples. Repetition of praseodymium too in the first sentence.
"Great precision" is to mean: precision only dependent on measurement precision, especially not on sample selection, because all samples have the same nuclide. It's the multi-nuclidic elements that have varieties between samples, as an extra cause of imprecision. Language could be improved indeed (but not by me). -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Praseodymium dissolves readily in dilute sulfuric acid to form solutions containing the chartreuse Pr3+ ions, which exist as a [Pr(H2O)9]3+ complexes: whoops.
  • High but uncertain coordination numbers and poorly defined stereochemistry is the rule… Rather iffy.
  • The first reference in the history section could be was made more reliable.
  • Praseodymium's classification as a rare earth metal rather comes from the fact that it is rarer than "common earths" such as lime and magnesia, and that only a few minerals for which praseodymium extraction is commercially viable are known. The process of extraction is also rather long and arduous. Lots of words here and two related sentences, can be trimmed.
  • The Gibbs free energy of formation for the formation of the Ln(edta·H) complexes increase along the lanthanides by about one quarter from Ce3+ to Lu3+, so that the Ln3+ cations descend the development column in a band and are fractionated repeatedly, so that they are eluted from the heaviest to the lightest. More confused words.
  • …but the main side effects from inhalation of rare earth oxides in humans come not from the rare earths themselves but from the radioactive thorium and uranium impurities, as the rare earths tend to occur together with these elements. Ditto.