User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Lanthanum-138)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipe-tan trifecta sign.png
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I may not watch your talk page and I will likely unintentionally IGNORE your reply if you do not ping me in it, use Template:Talkback, or copy it to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! I also prefer to keep the conversation in one place and not split across multiple pages. Thank you.

The following users watch my talk page (feel free to add yourself to this list if you do so too).

There's a thing I'd want you to check for[edit]

Just to start with, I've seen the note about how you're not currently able to spend much time for Wiki. Neither am I, at least for now. But let's leave it there for a while. And maybe if you have some spare, say, five to ten minutes, could you please check for that. (Quick fulfillment of my request would be appreciated, but not required, and this could easily wait a month.)

I'm up with lead again. We have a para in the History section that deals with the Middle ages and the Renaissance era, but from that description already you can see how it is focused on Europe, even though we have this phrase: "lead mining in Europe in general fell into decline, and the largest lead production was conducted in South and East Asia, where lead output underwent a strong growth." I'd want to add something about lead in that region during that time, but it is difficult to find something worthy in English (in great part because the word "lead" is easily taken in a search query for the verb of that spelling). You seem to have some skill in Chinese, could you check and find something worthy for the purpose? It would be totally great, as I don't want the text to be too Euro-centric (even though to some extent, it will be, given Rome and the Industrial Revolution, so this would be especially useful for introducing the Western reader into some new information and just for diversity in general).--R8R (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, I only just realised you'd written to me – I had my talk page open on my phone, so the orange bar didn't show up and I didn't scroll down to the bottom. I'm really sorry about this! <m(__)m>
Anyway, I'll check and probably get back to you about this in the next week, I think. in Chinese is unambiguous, so it should not be a problem. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem. :) Please let me know when you've found something.--R8R (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A thought[edit]

I think it's not necessarily a good thing to go for GAs.

A plus de facto ensures this article will hardly ever be significantly improved beyond what it was on getting its green plus. Especially given (I think) it closes the window of opportunities for near GA-class articles. I think (on my first look) that gallium almost qualifies for a weak GA. If it becomes one, it will remain a weak GA that nobody will ever improve (see half the transition metal GAs, hafnium, for example). Not only does that spoil the somewhat utopian idea of having an everblue PTQ (naive, but I still like it), it does decrease the chance an enthusiastic editor will later further improve it in the long run, because they'll probably look for a B/C/Start-class article, and surely the first few articles of a new interested editor will be articles with a clear potential for improvement (that is, weak quality).

Indium is okay, but if GAed, it's going to be okay forever.--R8R (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am still not totally convinced (sorry!), because I don't see many new people coming to a project with high-profile articles like ours and sticking to it. So in that sense to me it feels like sacrificing current readers for future editors, which, while nice, doesn't quite sit well with me because we know the first group exists while we keep waiting in vain for the second. GA might be a level everything stagnates at, but only when an article gets there does the reader get a coherent experience. I can definitely feel the difference between As and Se, for one. (I can also totally feel it between Tl and Pb.)
Yeah, I see your point, I've had that idea before writing to you. What I want to draw your attention to is that it mostly doesn't matter to a reader if the article is a GA or not, it matters mostly to the editors---those who may improve it. My point is, if it doesn't require much to make an article a GA, then it's generally good already for a reader, even if not so for an editor. So the reader already has the benefits and the window of opportunities is not closed.
Well, it didn't require much to make In a GA (only a few hours), but I do not think a reader could have done it. As it stands he or she would have gone off thinking that those lab techniques were actual applications on a par with the huge semiconductor industry! (So maybe it is not so much GA I care about as a sticker but as a marker that things are all right and there is nothing too wrong.) Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I am not convinced this green plus is worth much. It's a review by one person, some more valuable than other. They don't immediately show things are okay. I plan to use them as a pre-PR review: just one person's opinion, because when you have a good article you know it's good, right? Besides, a reader can't be expected to do anything, maybe they'll correct typos, and nothing more. They're readers. And there's nothing bad with improving an article; I just think that getting a green plus discourages any future editor who may come any day now (there was another Russian editor who came around to ELEM just recently whose username started with a B; unfortunately, he didn't pick an article (yet?), maybe because the project appeared half-dead, but it's not like nothing will ever happen) will not want to improve that page any further.--R8R (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I phrased that badly...I meant, what the readers would learn from the article, what they would get from it. I want them to walk out of the metaphorical wikiclassroom with an understanding of the chemistry of the element in question (like how everything about La makes sense the moment you consider its atomic radius and electron configuration), its history, its properties, what it is good for, etc.! And not a mess of disconnected factoids like they would get currently from Ce, or something like In before yesterday which emphasised unimportant applications. Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That is understandable.
What I may be missing, though, is that these green pluses may be nice to have. I don't value them much, because the standard is low, but I see you could disagree. Anyway, I think by the time I stopped making a good article I find good, it wouldn't be far from the FA status, and I'd go for it. Things may be different for you.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The standard is low, but adequate. That is what I care about.
You see, I don't feel strongly about every one of the 118 elements, and I expect you don't either. In was not on my mind before yesterday, and is again not on my mind today. Oh, sure, I expect everyone feels strongly about the first 20, all the halogens, all the ancient elements, and the few other culturally significant ones (definitely Pt, U, and Pu), but after that it's a question of what niche you've put yourself in. But the readers deserve a coherent, reasonably written, accurate piece about it nevertheless, regardless of our fancies. Especially regardless of my f-block-loving tendencies, which clearly many of our readers do not agree with! (^_^)
I don't expect to have the same drive to take In to the high quality I have for Th, for instance. (I knew it was important and scary, but the f-block devotion outweighed it.) But it makes me happy that the readers have something better, and it makes me even happier when the reviewer says something like you can see at Talk:Group 12 element/GA1.
And maybe, one day, someone will come who is really passionate about indium, or I can find enough to feature it regardless. Then we get to a great article both ways, but this way the readers get an okay one for longer, no? (I mean, I don't think many people will read the whole of an FA, right? They will usually just look up what they need for their current task, like a paper encyclopaedia.) Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The previous paragraphs quite made me see your point after some thinking, but here, you're oversimplifying things. "And maybe, one day, someone will come who is really passionate about indium" really passionate about indium? that's already questionable, but a GA status will almost certainly deter them: "yeah, it's a GA, okay then." You even say "maybe, one day," which I take for you find that implausible yourself. "I mean, I don't think many people will read the whole of an FA, right?" -- I disagree. Many don't, but if, say, 1 in 10 do, that's a lot, right? (see, that "right" again, because neither of us is really confident.) Also, the phrase "the Wikipedia effect" didn't come out of nowhere. Besides, having improved the whole thing to FA status also means improving each aspect to the FA status (duh), and everyone is still served.--R8R (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I dunno, Axiosaurus has a userpage list of things to do with the rare earth articles, including complaints about Sc (GA) and Y (FA). He did do some work on lanthanide to fix that, but he's not really around now.
I suppose it boils down to "I like decorating my userpage with pretty green pluses and it makes me happy". The fact that chalcogen is a GA and yttrium is an FA, and that nobody has successfully challenged them, seems to tell me that it's silly and that it doesn't actually reflect actual quality. But it does look pretty. If someone knows enough to see that it's wrong, he or she will be able to tell that despite the little green plus, not everything is right. Double sharp (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's fair and I can't really counter that. (And I'd missed that for a long part of this discussion how the pluses are editorial motivation, even if not so much for me.) I think, however, that bronze stars are a lot more rewarding, and I suggest you try to get one first to see if you'll agree. (We still have a collab on lead, right?)--R8R (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely: these few things (120, In, La) were me procrastinating on doing work on Pb (though I have a few ideas to be done next week, since real life is going to catch up with me in a few hours). Maybe I will FA lanthanum later though. The main reason for doing so would be that our current flagship for the rare earth metals (Y) leaves something to be desired. It's okay but it's not really FA-quality because it lacks a proper compounds section. (Of course I agree that bronze stars are more rewarding, but they take longer and GA lets you quickly get more articles to an okay level, leave them for a while there, and then come back like we are doing for Pb.) Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you about the GA stagnation thing though. But this is not something we can fix by not making GAs; rather we can fix it by featuring old GAs. We are already doing Pb, for one, and I plan to continue with W. Actually, I know I wrote it as a GA, but I almost think I could take Th to FAC pretty soon if I got back to it now. (Bronze star opportunity!) There is a big difference between a current-standard, okay GA (look at Se for instance) and an earlier-standard, not-okay GA (Sc, Hf, or Tl).
You and I, yes, but who else?
Despite my comments after the first two paras of your re, I don't mean to force you into my thinking. The title "A thought" implies what it says---"give it a thought, not necessarily agree with me right off (though, of course, I'd love you to agree later, but it's up to you)."
I'm pretty much resigned to it being just the two of us doing it. Yes, it was great in 2011–2, but that's not going to happen. If it's only two people, so be it: we can make the most of it. Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No one knows what the future brings. Don't give up so easily. Maybe Nergaal, Mav, and Stone didn't expect we'd come in around 2010.--R8R (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Besides, it's not just two of us: there's Sandbh and DePiep and YBG and maybe others(?).--R8R (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't given up, but I'm not holding my breath either. I would love it if it happened, but would also plan in case it continues like it is today.
I know the others are there, but DePiep and YBG seem more on the maintenance and template side, and Sandbh does great work, but more on categories. So the core 120 are not really changing. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a thought for you: WP Chemicals refuses to recognise GAs and FAs in its banner. If we did this, we could look at a GA and assess it honestly. For instance, Tl would be rated B, chalcogen C for missing the point entirely, and carbon C. Even He (an FA) has a severe citation drought and may be thought of as A for this purpose. (For the writing, not the citing.) This way we keep external assessments, but also are not deluding ourselves into thinking that everything is all right in Transitionmetalsville. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Good idea, I like it. Then we could also rework our PTQ, and these weak TM GAs may be yellow wearing those pluses, themselves indicating something's not alright. Would you propose that on WT:ELEM?--R8R (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I will.
P.S. I am kind of struggling with writing lanthanum, but it's working. Unfortunately today and yesterday were exceptional in amount of time I have, so it will proceed painfully slowly. But I do plan to add stuff. Next is history (and this is why La – it was one of the first). Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I think history is the easiest and most fun section of all.--R8R (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it is. It's the earlier and later stuff that require more research. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for a late re (I forgot). What I forgot to mention about the GA--break--FA scheme you proposed is that you have to make a decent GA. Otherwise, as in my current case with lead, you'll have to re-research everything (well, maybe except physical properties, they are easy to get right the first time). For maybe a year before the F FAC started (which itself happened because of the push by Freywa; I was uneasy about that initially, but grateful in the end), it was near-FA quality, like, one step away from getting the star. If that's the GA you make a break with, then sure. Otherwise, this improvement is not much help in the long run: you'll still have to research for stuff and think how to include new stuff and think what to leave out---basically everything you do when writing an article.
What I want to point out the History does require a lot of research to get it done well (when you aim for FA), too. Apart from Lead#History, which I consider to be fine except for the part I want your help with (by the way, I still do), one striking example (see ununseptium) is how, despite everyone saying thinking about names before getting recognition was a no-no, one professor (Hamilton; he wasn't even apparently involved into colliding the nuclei, he simply did organizational work like getting the stuff for others to work with) said he would name it. I can't help the feeling it was a bit douchy, but that is absolutely great to have in your article. I got a similar feeling after you posted that link about naming and the Transfermium Wars and how we got the unun- names and so on. And when you told me Dubna felt dissatisfied with element 113. This requires research, but this makes the content you make great.
As you know, I think the reason to write articles for me is not to blindly get stars, but to produce content I would consider fine. Research to get those things that get the reader on is essential (as I see it; some would disagree, but I think we are not Encyclopaedia Britannica and are absolutely allowed to differ from them because of the very nature of Wikipedia). It's just the things being the easiest to imagine and variability of what you may write higher/wider(?).
P.S. Ping me in a week if you want to to take part in thorium PR.--R8R (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
If we were Britannica, our La article would stop at the lede, so I'm glad we're not.
Regarding Th, this is what I would consider a "decent" GA, although I am still unsure about how much "history" should include. Certainly the discovery and first isolation, and then what? With Pb we have a long history of course, and with Au we would need a separate "cultural importance" section, Np becomes a history of transuranium elements and Ra becomes a history of radioactivity. But something like La would just trail off after that, as it wasn't really useful for a long while (and won't uses overlap with applications?). (Even today, the problem with writing a lanthanide article is that applications tend not to be specific to them, so by default they get put on La and Ce as the most common ones!)
Currently my Th history structure is 1815 false discovery; 1828 real discovery; periodic table placement; radioactivity; first application. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Talking about milestones, I think what you'd have to have except I would try to write more on everything: a little more on 1815 (for one, who and when showed there was no new element in that ore from Falun (where is that?)? and was there a controversy?), a little more on 1828 (no substantial comment for a quick look right now, but could you please explain: according to Google Maps, Løvøya is a peninsula, despite its article saying otherwise. Which of these is wrong? Also, it'd be cool to state location somehow so I wouldn't want to check what that is, like "Løvøya, an island/peninsula off the western coast of the Oslofjord [I think Oslofjord is okay, since it's the largest fjord in the Scandinavian peninsula and is clearly seen even on a contour map of the peninsula -- R8R], Norway"), more on PT location (for example, why was the whole actinide concept established decades after the corresponding lanthanide concept?), much more on radioactivity (new concept, new elements found from decay of thorium, for example), much more on applications (what many applications? how was thorium being phased out in the 20th century? etc.). Note this is my first brief look; I'll take a closer look in a week. I'll read the whole thing then.--R8R (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Except maybe sub-headings would change too, but these come and go, anyway.--R8R (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No, there was no controversy: Berzelius found out himself (presumably upon more careful analysis) ten years later and retracted his own finding. (The Fontani ref I added for this says Berzelius did not publicise a name for it, contradicting Wickleder and the old bastion Weeks; perhaps Berzelius privately thought of the name "thorium" at this time, but had doubts that the 1815 discovery was real. But I have not yet found a source saying this.) Also, there are multiple places in Norway called Løvøya, but it seems that this is the one we are talking about, near the town of Brevik (which I added). I added a little more detail on why the actinide concept took so long to figure out (because the naturally occurring elements for all intents and purposes stop at U, and you only get the wake-up call at Np and Pu that something is wrong). I fixed these first: the others will take a little more time. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Still, is there a better way to state the location? Of course, it is close to that town, but the town has a population of only two thousand something and is hardly a point helping anyone from at least 100 km away from that place to find it. Either a geographical toponym or an administrative unit will do the trick as long as it unambiguously defines that very island.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed it to reference the county of Telemark, which is what the island's article also does in the title. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lanthanum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qualitative analysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Star polygon 120-11.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Star polygon 120-11.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to care since there are already SVG replacements, but FWIW, they have been okayed by Sfan00 IMG for Commons based on being PD-simple. Even if I was not the one who had created them (and I was), I do not see how such a regularly symmetric geometric arrangement of lines could possibly be copyrighted. I already reverted all the warnings the first time this happened: I guess I will wait and see if I still care enough. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Since you created the images, I think it is only fair that you are credited as the author. May I tag the files with PD-Self, and remove the no-source tags? -FASTILY 06:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Great, Yes check.svg Done! -FASTILY 20:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead, again[edit]

Hi, I just tried to fill in the Lead#Production section with details (for another time) but finally realized I can't keep myself uninterrupted writing this very section (one reason why that I can think of is that maybe I'm just looking for too detailed sources). It's strange: it should not specifically difficult. You said quite recently you'd join soon; could you take this section?--R8R (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

We used to have a system which was supposed to collect comments from readers, separate from talk pages; is it still available? If so, how?--R8R (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it this? If so, it's gone. (Really: even links to previous comments, even the fondly remembered "the same in Spanish please!" one in At, don't work anymore.) Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't find it myself. Too bad it's gone.--R8R (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Does this help: WT:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5/Archive 5 § Wikipedia Article Feedback corpus? YBG (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I read that but forgot to say "thanks": thank you!--R8R (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bohrium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dipole moment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead on hold?[edit]

I saw you wondering on your user page. The answer is yes. Except no. Maybe...

You see, I am a little short on time. I have more time at the moment than usually, but also other stuff comes in. I am currently devoting the time I have to your review of thorium. After it's over, I'll switch back to lead. I'm unable to take both at the same time. Unfortunately, I am limited to the time when I'm at home, since editing from my cell phone is sometimes super difficult (the cursor ·jumps around the wikitext when I'm typing something via my cell phone). I have a few ideas for thorium. Keep up. I hope my comments have been good so far. As for me, I like to see the changes as you're making them.

Speaking of the review. I've had the idea for a while to write a guide to FAs written in my style. However, I'm not all that sure someone will actually use it. :( besides, this consumes time which I'd want to spend for writing articles (lead is on, and I'm excited to eventually get to dubnium). What do you think?R8R (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, write it if you think it's worth it! ^_^ I do not really have a clear idea what FA quality is yet, so I just improve every little thing until it seems to be complete. Doubtless you could explain this much better. Double sharp (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit worried that if I only get one reader for that time-consuming guide, I might better explain things to you individually. In general, FA quality is an article that a) you're content with, b) has nice prose (I always get a go from the GOCE to get this one), c) has everything important in due weight, d) has nice details and (ideally) points a direction to research in to get comfortable with the topic (for which you need prose, notes, and wikilinks), and e) interconnection of stuff, so a reader has to make some thinking themselves, even if (or maybe preferably) it's just following what you've written (so the reader pays attention). I have my hopes to provide a complete understanding of this via the review.--R8R (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to spam sections on the same problem over and over, so I'll use this one.

May I please get you to continue our collab on lead? We're almost there already, there are only 2 sections left: Production and Bio. Production needs some info on recycling; I haven't looked closely at Bio yet. Can I ask you to get to write some stuff on recycling? A couple of paras should do, I think, mentioning what is lead recycled from and specifics of tat (maybe something else I'm missing at the moment). Shouldn't be too difficult, right?--R8R (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, R8R! I'll do some research. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice to know, thank you.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lanthanum[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lanthanum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thorium review[edit]

One question: do you want me to complete it so you get the comments and implement them later or do you want me to go along you editing it? Either is fine, but the latter is better because now that I've read them just recently, I have more ideas in my mind and can provide quick response. Don't want to see these comments covered in dust. Besides, doing things in one shot is better: you have the thing in mind, and you don't lose time catching up. I don't an immediate recipe for a specific FA, but I know my principles. I may have cool ideas that depend on what you add (I do have a couple) and then forget them waiting for a reaction (I already am forgetting them :( )--R8R (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you go along as I edit them, like you say you prefer. Double sharp (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Great! Then I think I'm done with general description of what should be done for History. As soon as you'll make some edits in thorium or the review page, I'll get back to check and when you tell me to, continue with the next section.--R8R (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, congrats with the recent La GAN success!--R8R (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!
Regarding thorium, I fear you may have to help me do some of the research...I am finding some difficulties finding details on what exactly happened in the early history of the element in the 19th century. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but could you be a little more specific? What can't you find and want to?--R8R (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Basically, the stuff near the beginning that you raised that I can't answer to my satisfaction, such as what Berzelius did to the 1815 and 1824 rocks, why he was looking for rocks in 1815 in the first place, how long it took for thorium to be recognised as an element, etc. (The last one I can sort of guess – shouldn't have taken very long, given how respected Berzelius was then, and how he himself had noted that the previous "thorium" was a shaky claim – but can find no source for, alas!) Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

R8R, thank you so much for your rewrite of the history section! It really looks good now, and I've been fixing most of the points you raised. (I also finally noticed your call for more discussion on trends across the actinides as opposed to single properties of Th.* Alas, there are some problems with this: for example, it's difficult to compare Th metal with Pa and U because of differing strutures.) So I think you can now carry on to the next sections of the review as we work together to polish this radioactive diamond to the FA standards of Tc, U, and Pu (the most well-investigated radioactives, with Po and Np close behind). Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

*And I still mentally think of Th as the first actinide, along with Greenwood. This may be a naughty, but there is more reason for it here than in the lanthanides, because Ac only has 3 valence electrons and thus is very similar to the lanthanides, so it is more allied with the late actinides from Am to Es. So we have three groups with two singular cases: Ac, Th–Pu (early, quasi-transition metals), Am–Es (late, quasi-lanthanides), Fm–No (last, lovers of the +2 state), and Lr. But where to explain this here? Do we even need to, or just imply it by predominantly comparing Th with Pa and U (with some glances at Np and Pu)? Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed this reply. I'll continue the review in the coming days.--R8R (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked my edit. It's not like I did much, I just shifted accents and added a little little nice stuff. In general, yes, I do like the section now (except for the missing nukes and reactors -- that does concern me, as you might've noticed). But I only helped shape the idea of what it should be---you've done most of the work.
Did I actually call for that? I'll check my previous comments in the review tonight/soon; I forgot the context. I'll write back my ideas on that then.--R8R (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I just took a look, I even said "You're not writing actinide, you're writing thorium." Personally, I think there are a couple of places that may benefit from comparison with neighboring elements (whether you call actinium an actinide or not), but I generally think Th is a self-sufficient element and does not need other actinides to get into this. Vertical relationships may even be more interesting in some contexts (bulk properties, for example). Horizontal relationships... not even sure they're needed. Maybe something related to bulk/chem properties... not sure yet, we'll see. But in general, I don't call for more actinides to get involved.--R8R (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lanthanum[edit]

The article Lanthanum you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Lanthanum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thorium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Newlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Thorium half sandwich.png listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thorium half sandwich.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)