From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Rhodium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
June 15, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Version 0.5  
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating 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, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:23, 6 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 11:21, 24 May 2005). 24 May 2005

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Rhodium. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.

Is there anything missing for B-Class?[edit]

A lot of things changed in the article. I had a look and for me it looks much better than in October 2008 and I would promote it if nobody objects!--Stone (talk)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The prose is very good, easy to read. Shouldn't be too difficult for most readers to understand.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is adequately referenced, with reliable sources. Looks good.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The major aspects of the article are covered, including the chemical properties, discovery, applications, etc. I think it might be a good idea to move the 'occurrence' section up to fall immediately after 'characteristics' -- so the article would flow more naturally from a description of it's properties to its occurrence in nature or man-made activities.
Moved the occurrence section.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The 'history' section is usually the first section, immediately after the lead. In this case, it might be more accurate to change the title of that section to 'discovery' as well, since it really covers the discovery of the element.
Moved the history section and expanded it by the two mayor applications which were used in the early 2000s century in the 1920s and the 3-way converter in the mid 1970s.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead section is also too short, and doesn't really accurately summarize the article. For one, the applications section states that the primary use is in catalytic converters in automobiles, but this isn't even mentioned in the lead.
Expanded the lead with the applications.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article meets all WP:NPOV guidelines and requirements.
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Not really over 50 edits since January, so I'd say the article is very stable.
  3. 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):
    The images are all tagged and captioned as appropriately required.
  4. Overall:
    This article is in excellent shape! Save a few minor issues with criterion #3, I think this article meets the GA criteria. It can be promoted once the issues raised above are satisfied. I'll put it on hold until 6/23/2010, so that the issues can be resolved. WTF? (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Articles passes. WTF? (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict, dissolved by Aqua regia or not?[edit]

"Diluted nitric acid dissolved all but palladium and rhodium, which were dissolved in aqua regia" - History section in this article. "However, aqua regia does not dissolve or corrode titanium, iridium, ruthenium, rhenium, tantalum, niobium, hafnium, osmium, or rhodium"- Following link from Aqua regia article.

Tumorte (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Tumorte. 2016-08-07. 09:51.

Good point. Greenwood and Earnshaw (p. 1116) write "Rhodium and iridium...are especially notable for their extreme inertness to acids, even aqua regia. Dissolution of rhodium metal is best effected by fusion with NaHSO4, a process used in its commercial separation." Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
+1 I know it from my own experiments too. I clean always Rh (and Ir) shavings with aqua regia with no Rh losses (or "only" µg amounts). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC) P.S: take a look above to the POTD ;-)
Furthermore, Greenwood and Earnshaw also give the actual account of the history. "In 1803 both rhodium and iridium were discovered, like their preceding neighbours in the periodic table, ruthenium and osmium, in the black residue left after crude platinum had been dissolved in aqua regia. W. H. Wollaston discovered rhodium, naming it after the Greek word ῥὀδον for "rose" because of the rose-colour commonly found in aqueous solutions of its salts." I'll make the necessary changes. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes. Rh and Ir are better soluble in a mixture of NaClO3 + conc. HCl. Ru + Os in a solution of LiClO. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)