Talk:Lead/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead mining in China

Mining and Metallurgical Technology - ... http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783662441626-c2.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1483619-p176840091&ved=0ahUKEwi0h8er7PvKAhWDliwKHffyB7gQFggzMAY&usg=AFQjCNECT4IiQy4lb6CBypANr3PpPZzX6A&sig2=b8sVz9iVa14Pa88Kw_VAaQ --R8R (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead in the 20th century

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/toxic-metals/more-metals/lead-history.html

Also mention the growing demand in the developing countries, esp. China--R8R (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The change in the se of lead was basically driven by the health concerns might be good ending for the history section and why we life in a "lead free" society:

• "Lead poisoning in a historical perspective". PMID 10940962. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• ""Cater to the children": the role of the lead industry in a public health tragedy, 1900-1955". PMC 1446124. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• . "Warnings unheeded: a history of child lead poisoning". PMC 1349776. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Thank you for these sources. Containment of lead usage will indeed be very important for writing the history of lead in the 20th century, but I am not yet certain if there should be a happy ending. The United States still uses lead paint, and I have yet to research about usage of lead in the newly (compared to most today's developed countries) industrialized countries, such as China, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, etc, and the Third World countries.--R8R (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this book has something about lead in developing countries?https://books.google.ru/books?id=pWQsKEsDTBoC&redir_esc=y --R8R (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Corrosion in seawater

Corrosion rate in seawater of pure lead,Antimonial lead and Tellurium lead shown in a series of tests to be between 0.2 and 0.5 Mils per year.
Reinhart, Fred M.; Jenkins, James F. (1972). "CORROSION OF MATERIALS IN SURFACE SEAWATER AFTER 12 AND 18 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE" (PDF). Technical Note N-1213 YF 38.535.005.01.004. Port Hueneme, California 93043: NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY. Retrieved 28 February 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs) 07:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC), 07:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC) and 08:18, 28 February 2016 (in 3 edits all together)

Lead graph

The graph in the 1994 article is redrawn from here -- http://www.ganino.com/games/Science/science%20magazine%201980/root/data/Science%201980/pdf/1980_v207_n4436/1683311.pdf (1980). Wonder if that "present" leads somewhere further in the past?--~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by R8R Gtrs (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Missing /ref tag in the previous section prevented substitution of ~~~~

World Lead Production 2014

--Stone (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lead. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lead.org.au/lanv2n3/lanv2n3-22.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lead.org.au/lanv2n4/lanv2n4-14.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lead.org.au/lanv2n1/lanv2n1-11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=92&tid=22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft for the para on the 20Th century

Counties in Europe and the United States, on the other hand, started efforts to reduce the amount of lead a regular person contacts with. The last major innovation to impose contact with lead on humans was adding tetraethyllead to gasoline, invented in the United States in 1921; it was phased out in the U.S. and the European Union by 2000. Most European countries banned usage of lead paint by 1930. The result of many regulations and bans put on lead products was significant: in the last quarter of the twentieth century, percentage of people with excessive lead blood levels dropped from over three quarters of the population to slighlty over two percent in the U.S. However, industrialization was launced in many countries outside Europe and Northern America in the 20th century, and this led to increaed demand for lead in these newly industrialized countries, such as China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil. Many of them have had high level of production of and demand for lead. Similarly to Europe's and U.S.'s industrializations, it has caused lead poisoning across these counties. (late fake signing for archive purposes only -DePiep (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)): 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

R8R, if you want a "magical" discussion of periodic trends like I did so long ago at alkali metals

Try this. It worked so well because it was clearly written at the high-school level.

BTW, he says he can't explain the non-metal to metal trend from the EN values, but I think I have a simple explanation that you might want to send him (^_^). From C to Si, the EN values do drop as he says. Now it goes up again at Ge. Why? Look at the electron configurations: Ge has a filled d-subshell while Si doesn't. The d-electrons do not shield the nuclear charge very well and hence the effective nuclear charge experienced by the outer electrons on Ge are lower than expected. Hence Ge is a smaller atom than you would think and its electronegativity goes up a little. Sn then continues the trend down as you would expect. Now we come to Pb. What has happened here is that we are comparing the electronegativity values for the elements in the +4 oxidation state. But this is not really fair to Pb, for which the +4 state is less stable than the +2 state. Pb⁴⁺ is electron-poor and should attract shared electrons in its covalent bonds more strongly than Pb²⁺. (This effect applies to all elements, but only for Tl and Pb is it strong enough for you to see a large difference because of the relativistic contraction of the 6s orbital.) If you plot the EN value for Pb²⁺, 1.87, you will see that it continues the trend down from Sn admirably well. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. the lanthanide contraction also contributes for Pb, like the d-block one does for Ge. But relativistic contraction of 6s swamps it. Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did mention that contraction and I did mention the 6s stabilization, so we're cool.--R8R (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't think I'd want to go into detail in an article on an element (this is not an article on a period, after all). I think we have enough right now. As for this site, yes, I did try writing to the author a while ago; I didn't convince him back then. You may try now, this is your argument, after all. :) R8R (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd do it for carbon group, but not here. (Although that is annoying to write because every one of those elements is so different.) Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Poisoning

Greenwood and Earnshaw are more specific about the causes: "[Lead] acts by complexing with oxo-groups in enzymes and affects virtually all steps in the process of haem synthesis and porphyrin metabolism. It also inhibits acetylcholine-esterase, acid phosphatase, ATPase, carbonic anhydrase, etc. and inhibits protein synthesis probably by modifying transfer-RNA. In addition to O complexation (in which it resembles Tl^I, Ba^II, and Ln^III), Pb^II also inhibits SH enzymes (though less strongly than Cd^II and Hg^II), especially by interaction with cysteine residues in proteins. Typical symptoms of lead poisoning are cholic, anaemia, headaches, convulsions, chronic nephritis of the kidneys, brain damage and central nervous-system disorders. Treatment is by complexing and sequestering the Pb using a strong chelating agent such as edta, {–CH₂N(CH₂CO₂H)₂}₂, or BAL i.e. British anti-Lewisite, HSCH₂CH(SH)CH₂OH." (2nd edition, pp. 367–8) Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Density Value

Lead density according to this page is 11.34 g/cm3. According to CRC handbook, it is 11.3. According to the RSC website, it is 11.3. Where is this page's density value coming from? 204.69.190.254 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Note the link "references" in the very bottom of the infobox. There you may find references to values used in infoboxes of chemical elements.--R8R (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lange's handbook (20 degrees Celsius). Double sharp (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Greenwood and Earnshaw give 11.342 g/cm³. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

secondary lead production

Mostly from recycling lead-acid batteries. Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a good source; thanks. (Too bad, however, it only deals with the U.S.)--R8R (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I've found a source which I think is even better: http://www.ila-lead.org/UserFiles/File/factbook/chapter4.pdf (replace "4" with another digit to get to another chapter of the book).--R8R (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Pb-205

I forgot to mention this! This is one of those cool nuclides that don't release enough energy on decay to allow positron emission, so the only available decay mode is electron capture. This means that when ²⁰⁵Pb is fully ionised (like it could be in stars), it is actually the stable isobar of mass 205, and ²⁰⁵Tl decays to it! It is only when they leave the star and get an electron cloud that ²⁰⁵Pb decays to the now-stable ²⁰⁵Tl. (⁷Be is also like this, which is even cooler since it is produced in the Big Bang, and hence could not have decayed until recombination – so it makes sense to say that BBN produced Be, even though it didn't produce very much of the stable isotope ⁹Be, only a little of the quasi-stable ⁷Be.) Sources: one, two. Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, cool! I'll either wait for you to add it or do it later myself--R8R (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I've got a question for you in that case: in conditions allowing for the s-process, is it possible that Pb-205 actively captures electrons? Are there electrons to be possibly captured?--R8R (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Chart representing the final part of the s-process. Red horizontal lines with a circle in their right ends represent neutron captures; blue arrows pointing up-left represent beta decays; green arrows pointing down-left represent alpha decays; cyan arrows pointing down-right represent electron captures.

I'm asking to make sure this chart is correct. Is it correct in regards with Pb-205? If so, then is it in regards with Tl-205?--R8R (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Highly charged ion gives naked uranium, U⁹²⁺, as an example of something you could find in stellar coronae. If that is so, naked lead, Pb⁸²⁺, should be reachable as well, which would give rise to this scenario. But it really does have to be naked so that there are no electrons in the K and L shells to be captured to form ²⁰⁵Tl. Now ²⁰⁵Pb⁸²⁺ is of course incredibly highly charged, so the moment it finds an electron (presumably once it leaves the star, if I am right), it will at least plunge into the K or L shells where it can be captured by the nucleus. This is where you get ²⁰⁵Tl, because Pb⁸²⁺ really does not want to be naked (it's very highly charged, and so the electrostatic forces of attraction will be hilariously high). Since the ions are not always naked even in stellar conditions (Fe¹³⁺ is far more common than Fe²⁶⁺, for instance), I imagine we should still show ²⁰⁵Tl as the stable one here. Double sharp (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

See the original graph with elements 47--51 (may be found in s-process): the pale cells denote isotopes that are still stable but don't take part in the s-process. The question is, does that electron capture happen in the s-process? Should I get those (uhm) turquoise (?) arrows back?--R8R (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I am really not sure about this now. When ²⁰⁵Tl⁸¹⁺ beta decays, the decay energy is so low that the resulting electron cannot actually escape the resulting ²⁰⁵Pb atom, and simply relaxes in the K or L shells (source). Now this bound state must be stable, as we obviously can't have the nucleus flipping back and forth between being ²⁰⁵Tl⁸¹⁺ and ²⁰⁵Pb⁸¹⁺. So it seems that you do not need the ²⁰⁵Pb⁸²⁺ to be completely naked, but it needs to be ionised enough such that there would be a low-enough orbital for the electron emitted from ²⁰⁵Tlⁿ⁺ in its beta decay to enter. So the hurdle is not quite as high.

Unfortunately I am stuck here because I do not have access to all the astrophysics articles that would tell me the degree of ionisation that you would have in stellar interiors! If you have access to this, please, let me know. It's about ¹⁸⁷Re instead of ²⁰⁵Tl, but the idea is the same (with the exception that ¹⁸⁷Re is still unstable even with all 75 electrons, but its decay is massively slowed). I think there must be some sort of tipping point in the degree of ionisation where the stable isotope switches from ²⁰⁵Tl to ²⁰⁵Pb as you strip off more and more electrons, but I don't know where it is, and where it is in relation to stellar nucleosynthesis.

What has happened with ¹⁸⁷Re is that ¹⁸⁷Re⁷⁵⁺ can decay to an excited state ¹⁸⁷Os^75+* that would be energetically forbidden with ¹⁸⁷Re (Q = −7.11), so ¹⁸⁷Re has to go the low-energy path with Q = 2.64. Only with ¹⁶³Dy, ¹⁹³Ir, and ²⁰⁵Tl (Q = −53.5, −55.8) do you get this strange effect of inverse decays. (⁷Be is a little different; it's always unstable, and conversion to ⁷Li is always energetically feasible, but just has no available path to decay when stripped). Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have little time at the moment to read closely and write a full-length re, but you asked if I had access---well, I do: [http://sci-hub.ac/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190 here]. I'd wanted to try sch-hub for a long time, but I had no reason to do so; now I remembered about it and checked, and it gave me a document immediately after I typed the DOI. Cool, huh.--R8R (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: The nature of pirated content is that anyone can access it, but that doesn't make it legitimate. Violating copyright is Sci-hub's reason for existence. That's why their domains are now blacklisted from linking on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I tried to write a reply twice (!), but it was lost both times because of network problems. I see your point. It's out of question that the publishers need money to pay salaries to their employees, etc. Of course. You're free to make your stand and justify it. I, however, stand where I stand because I am not doing that for my, or anyone's, profit as I don't intend to share the text to the general public. Possibly the company makes more money now that I shared the link in our workspace and we the editors have a source to verify facts with given that I don't intend to share the links with the general public (I didn't know sci-hub links weren't allowed in the main space until you said that as I never tried to insert one). But frankly, I couldn't care less about their profits. Also, the scientists who actually write that content like when people share what they discovered. (by the way, they make little to absolutely no money on articles.)--R8R (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: Just clarifying — I'm not making any stand. Wikipedia didn't blacklist Sci-Hub so that publishers can make money. The reason is to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from lawsuits. Wikipedia cannot legally link to copyright violations. The blacklist applies everywhere, not just in main space, but talk pages also. The link you placed above is still accepted because there's some "grandfather clause" logic in the blacklisting that allows users to edit a section containing a blacklisted link if that link pre-existed. If you removed that link in your comment above and tried to re-add it in a subsequent edit, you couldn't. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What should be included in Etymology

• Why is modern "lead" spelled so strangely, given the pronunciation? The Middle English "leed" does a better job
  • Actually I never thought "lead" was that strange a spelling for the metal, given the rhyming "read" and "head". The verb is indeed strange. Now I have to go read up on Old English and Middle English sound changes... Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • But then there are also "read" and "bead," so uhmmm... both pronunciations are strange? I wonder why is that?--R8R (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Is it related to the verb of that spelling? (I am 99% sure that the answer is no, but it's good to double check).--R8R (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No indeed. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Help from a linguist

@R8R Gtrs: That's a lot to cover. The diacritic presumably indicates something about pronunciation, but I'd have to see the transliteration key being used by that source (which is evidently not used by the other one, thus the mark is missing). When citing sources, you need to give the printed page number in the source (328 in this case, not 368) because PDF viewers and e-book viewers all paginate differently, if at all. For a source with no page numbers in it, cite the entry name (which is, after all, more specific than a page number anyway). But this source's citation should not include a URL to this copy, since it's obviously a copyright violation; there's no way "bulgari-istoria-2010.com" has permission to post a full-text scan of an expensive recent academic dictionary, to the whole world for free, like that. [Kinda wish they'd put up the Proto-Celtic one, which I would have had more use for. >;-] Anyway, "the same word" apparently means whatever the unreconstructed, non-IE origin word was for both Celtic *φloud-io- (i.e. *pʰloud-io-) and PGm *bliwa- 2 (see p. 69), also meaning "lead". I.e., it's being suggested that two divergent PGm words for lead, *bliwa- 2 and *lauda (or *laudą) ultimately come from a single ("the same") non-IE word we don't know, the first directly, and the second via a [Proto-]Celtic intermediary word. But we only care here about the second of these two which gave us the word lead; our article need not concern itself with *blīwa- 2 and its origin at all. When everything under discussion begins with "*" (meaning "reconstructed, not attested"), it's all very speculative, anyway. The "A" in *lAudh- is capitalized because, again, it's a phonetic representation of something in some particular pronunciation key that may differ from others. No idea what specific sound it means without a copy of the key from the source in question. If mentioned in our articles, it would ideally be normalized to current IPA, but can be given exactly as it appears in the source, and I guess someone else can IPA-ize it later. Neither the "A" nor the "ą" appear to be standard IPA, or even part of any well-known superset of IPA. Our article at Ą suggests that the latter is often used (in natural languages) for one of two nasalized vowels, but this doesn't help us be certain what the author intended with "*laudą", and it's almost certainly not a nasal. The capital-A, I dunno. It might even be an OCR or transcoding error of some kind, unless you're looking at the original book or a graphical scan of it. Moving on: The hyphens at the ends of many of these indicate they are combining forms (i.e., prefixes) not stand-alone words; this is the style for these in general, and has nothing to do with markup for [P]IE languages in particular, and doesn't relate to anything under discussion here. Lead the metal and lead the verb are spelled the same way by pure accident; English is not a particularly phonetically spelled language, and just "is the way it is" after centuries of amalgamation, into a very simple alphabet, of several forms of Germanic, multiple influxes of Latinate/Romance that came centuries apart (thus guarantee and warranty, the same word borrowed twice without realizing it), and bits and pieces of all sorts of other languages, especially Celtic, Greek, and later Romance languages like modern Spanish and Italian. Hope this helps. Iyou very much would check several recent (i.e. 1980s+), good dictionaries and etymological dictionaries. Some may trace the English metal term more specifically than just to Anglo-Saxon then a big, undifferentiated jump back to Proto-Germanic. The "*lAudh-" hypothesis might also appear (maybe in IPA), or it might be consistently absent, indicating it's fallen out of favor. I'm not sure there would be much difference between a *laudh[a]- theory and a *laud[a]- one, anyway; they might still both resolve back to Proto-Celtic *pʰloud-[io-] I would try to help further, but all the relevant books I have are packed away right now due to renovations in my building (my bookshelves were uncomfortably close to some pipes they've been working near, very roughly).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  9:53 pm, Yesterday (UTC+3)

Notes on physical properties

Lead ductility needs to be qualified. You have to use a lot of care with thin wires of Pb, because the tensile strength is low and so they break very easily. Also, despite its close-packed structure, its interatomic distance is actually really high, and the reasons for this should be talked about (IIRC, because the Pb atoms are only partially ionised, because inert pair etc., but I should check). Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, why is the electrical conductivity so low? Calcium is also face-centered cubic and about the same size, and yet its conductivity is quite a bit higher than that of lead.--Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt this will be very interesting for a reader and is perhaps excessive in an overview article. I've come to question if it's not too detailed right now. I can't find and still want to know about the interatomic distances, but not sure if this info should go live as well (but I'd want to know the reason first).--R8R (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a bit of reading, and this is very complicated. You cannot just compare effective nuclear charge and ionisation energies of Ca and Pb, or even how much the electrons would be attracted to Ca²⁺ vs Pb²⁺ ions. You have to look at electron-phonon scattering and pseudoelectron mass for this, and there is not really a clear trend down most of the periodic table where there are many electrons to look at. I do see clear trends in the simplest metals in the s-block (Cs<Rb<K<Na; Ra<Ba<Sr<Ca), but in general it is a mess, so I would not talk about it elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Pb(OH)₂

In solution, of course, this acts as a weak base, forming Pb²⁺ that promptly hydrolyses: but we should also probably mention that adding OH⁻ in excess will produce [Pb(OH)₄]²⁻ which is soluble (after all, this is a common high-school test for Pb²⁺). Double sharp (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

clarification requested

@Isambard Kingdom: I see you've added a clarify tag an hour ago. That's alright, but what do you want clarified? what's contradicting what? what can be done? I don't follow. Please spell it out for me.--R8R (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence: "Metallic lead does occur in nature, but it is rare." is seemingly contradictory. If metallic lead does not occur in nature, then it does not exist in nature. "Rare" means that it exists, but in small quantities. Is the second clause referring to non-natural quantities of lead, made by people? Not clear. Needs to be fixed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how the sentence saying that metallic lead occurs in nature can be taken as it not occurring in nature. I think it would need clarification only if the sentence was "Metallic lead does not occur in nature, but it is rare." but that is not what the sentence says. The second clause refers to metallic lead in nature, it does not refer to non-natural metallic lead. GeoWriter (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the sentence. Apologies galore. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Pre-FAC feedback

The lead

• This is quite good.

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• It seems odd that Etymology is the opening section of the main body of the article but nothing is said of it in the lead.

I checked four country FAs (Australia, Canada, India, Germany). None of these discusses Etymology in the lead. Myself, I think that Etymology is not a complete section, but rather auxiliary at best.--R8R (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• The capacity of lead to bond with itself is mentioned here but not in the main body of the article.

But it is! Here's the first sentence from Organolead: "Lead can form long singly- or multiply-bonded chains—catenas—and so shares some covalent chemistry with its lighter homolog carbon."--R8R (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The rest is fine. That concludes my pre-FAC comments for now ^_^ Will go back and look at your responses to my earlier comments. Sandbh (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I think I've properly acted in response to each comment by now. Please would take a look to confirm this or point at something to be done?--R8R (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Will respond in about 7 hours, if not before. Sandbh (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this one. Eagerly waiting for anything that is to follow.--R8R (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm all done apart from checking notes and references (which I may be able to squeeze in today). I expect I'll have some further comments to make at FAC, when I take a really close look at prose in slower time. Sandbh (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes and references done. Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

"The origin of *ɸloud-io- presumably pre-dates the Proto-Indo-European language;[2] while it is yet unknown, it is suggested it is also the origin of Proto-Germanic *bliwa- (which also means "lead"), from which stemmed the German Blei ("lead").[4]"

I don't think you need to say that the origin of *ɸloud-io- presumably pre-dates the Proto-Indo-European etc. It seems obvious to me that any word origin is presumably predated by something else, and there seems little point in finishing any etymology by saying so.

"The origin of *ɸloud-io- presumably pre-dates the Proto-Indo-European language;[2] while it is yet unknown, it is suggested it is also the origin of Proto-Germanic *bliwa- (which also means "lead"), from which stemmed the German Blei ("lead").[4]"

This is confusing because in the first paragraph of this section you say that:

"The Old English word is derived from the hypothetical reconstructed Proto-Germanic *lauda- ("lead").[2] According to accepted linguistic theory, this word bore descendants in most Germanic languages (with a major exception being German) [emphasis added] of exactly the same meaning."

Upon reading the two paragraphs again closely I think I see the difference. There is no descendant in German from "lauda-"; instead, lead in German is "Blei" which is thought to come from *bliwa-". I guess my feedback is that if you read the section at normal speed it can be a little confusing---you have to slow down and read it carefully to fully understand it. I'm not sure this is a good thing. Sandbh (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Better? Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes; good. Sandbh (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Physical

These are the first section titles:

1 Physical properties
   1.1 Atomic
   1.2 Bulk
   1.3 IsotopicIsotopes
2 Chemistry
   2.1 Inorganic compounds
       2.1.1 Lead(II)
       2.1.2 Lead(IV)
       2.1.3 Other oxidation states
   2.2 Organolead

I find the Physical's wording a bit itchy to read.

• 'Physical properties' could be 'Physical' or 'Physics', being parallel with 'Chemistry' and not necessarily limiting the topic. (or, charged the other way around: isn't everything in the article 'properties', so the article title could be 'Lead properties'?)
• The three physics subsections better be proper nouns. As they appear now, they are incomplete wording (adjectives) when seen & read on their own (it says 'atomic properties', but does not write that etc.).
• 'Isotopic' subsection: I prefer the word 'Isotopes'. In our 120 element articles, 109 use section title "Isotopes". The 11 exception titles are: Beryllium#Isotopes and nucleosynthesis (Be, Fv, Lv, Mc, Pu, Y); Oxygen#Isotopes and stellar origin (O); Oganesson#Nuclear stability and isotopes (Og, Ts, 119, 120). Disclosure: a month ago I renamed some of these subsections, reducing the number to four forms and making sure they have the word 'Isotopes' in them.
• So a first try would be:

1 Physics
   1.1 Atomic properties
   1.2 Bulk
   1.3 Isotopes 

But this is up for improvement. -DePiep (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on renaming Isotopic to Isotopes. As for the rest, I'm not so sure.

I use "Chemistry" because my first association with chemistry is chemistry reactions. Basically, that's what chemistry is. And we do describe how lead reacts and why. We also list compounds (the results of various reactions), which are also common to fall under that title (they're called "chemical compounds" for a reason). As for "Physics," the case is not nearly as clear. First of all, physics is a very wide concept (mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc.) and is more difficult to bear an association with. Also, I've heard and even used the word "chemistry" as a synonym for "chemical properties," but I've never seen anyone do that for "physics."

If "Atomic" is a standalone adjective, then bear in mind that "Bulk" is too, and if "Atomic" becomes "Atomic properties," then "Bulk" should also become "Bulk properties." That's too much "properties" to me.

Also, I genuinely think "Physical properties" is a good title.--R8R (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No issue with "Chemistry". I mentioned "Chemistry" as example of good. It's nouns btw. My English is not more subtle. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Chemical

• "Bulk lead exposed to moist air forms a protective layer of varying composition. A common reaction is the formation of the oxide which in turn reacts with carbon dioxide to give lead carbonate.[28][29][30] Other insoluble compounds, such the sulfate or chloride, may form the protective layer in differing chemical environments."

This overlaps with what you said in the physical subsection:

"Freshly prepared or fractured lead has a bright silvery appearance with a very slight hint of blue.[13] Lead tarnishes on contact with moist air, forming a complex surface mixture of compounds whose color and composition will vary depending on the prevailing conditions."

Overlap is not good.

"What you describe as overlap was, at least in some places, intended. I will rethink each casу separately and explain my ideas if I don't agree.

"In this case, you can see that Physical describes that fact that lead is corrupted in moist air. That's a good sentence for a physical description, I'd say. People would want (at least, I would; also, all big materials books that I know do when writing a general description) to apply info to actual life situations and not labs. Chemical describes what is formed. I'd say that's okay?--R8R (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited to tighten up the prose and reduce duplication. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• There is more overlap in paragraph 4:

"The presence of carbonates or sulfates results in the formation of insoluble lead salts, which protect the metal from corrosion. So does carbon dioxide, due to the formation of insoluble lead carbonate; however an excess of the gas will result in the formation of the soluble bicarbonate, which makes the use of lead pipes dangerous.^[why?]

Generally, what I said before; as for why -- do I really need to explain that? Unwanted soluble salt in water pipes is dangerous -- that seems self-descriptive, doesn't it?--R8R (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Tried to make this a bit clearer. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Continuing paragraph 4:

"Water in the presence of oxygen attacks lead and starts an accelerating reaction.^{[what doe this mean?]} Lead also dissolves in concentrated alkalis (≥10%) because of the amphoteric character and solubility of plumbites."

The last sentence could be a bit risk in an FAC, for a non-specialist who would not understand what you mean.

Perhaps there's an English term for what I described as an "accelerating reaction" that I'm not aware of. I intended to describe a reaction that grows more and more vigorous over time as the reactants continue to react.

I've changed the word to "self-fueling." This must be OK?--R8R (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll rethink the last sentence to enhance readability. (bold as a reminder for self)--R8R (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to reword this. Better now?--R8R (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had another go, explaining that the reaction continues due to the formation of a non-adherent film of lead(II) hydroxide. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Lead is not attacked by dilute sulfuric acid; the concentrated acid dissolves the metal thanks to complexation."

I don't understand this sentence. What's the difference between being attacked and dissolving?

Overlap is not good, and I always try to remove it (not counting the lede section). I also don't like the word "attack" in this context. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As for "attack smth." and "dissolve smth.", they are equivalent in this context. I've seen both quite commonly in English-language literature, so I decided we could use them just as we regularly use synonyms.--R8R (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Organolead

• "Lead can form long singly- or multiply-bonded chains—catenas..."

Duplicated in previous Other oxidation states subsection, where it says, "this illustrates lead's proclivity towards catenation (the ability to form chains of atoms of the same element)..."

Agree. Removed that phrase from Other oxidation states.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• These two sentences...

"Lead also forms covalent bonds with carbon to produce organolead compounds similar to, but generally less stable than, typical organic compounds,[3] as the Pb–C bond is rather weak.[4] Nevertheless, the organometallic chemistry of lead is far less wide-ranging than that of tin.[5]"

... have no logical connection.

I read that and I laughed. You're right! I'll rethink that.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Better now?--R8R (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The most well-characterized exceptions are the purple Pb[CH(SiMe)3)2]2..."

Does this have a name?

Yes, it does; the name is "bis(disyl)plumbylene." Looks too technical to me to have it with a formula, but if you say so, I'll add it.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. It looks odd to not name one compound but name the other one. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Added.--R8R (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The oxidizing nature of many organolead compounds is usefully exploited: lead tetraacetate is an important laboratory reagent for oxidation in organic chemistry;[77] tetraethyllead is produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound."

Is tetraethyllead an oxidant? Why is it produced in such large quantities?

It was produced as a lead additive to gasoline.

Thanks for bringing my attention to this, I'll work that.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've given this idea a try. I said the TEL, rather than is, was once produced as such a great scale. We describe later why TEL became prominent. Our ref is a textbook from 1998 that says the compound is being phased out, which we also mention in the History section.--R8R (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"With sodium metal, lead readily forms an equimolar alloy that reacts with alkyl halides to form organometallic compounds such as tetraethyllead. Plumbane may be obtained in a reaction between metallic lead and atomic (not molecular) hydrogen."

Tetraethyllead overlap with previous paragraph. Ditto plumbane.

Indeed, it would be better to move that to the previous para. Do you think that would be enough?--R8R (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It probably would be better than what there is now. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reworked that part a bit. Also removed non-lead-specific info.--R8R (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...that transform an organic compound into an inorganic one—of the original compounds..."

Don't understand what this means.

A longer fragment seems more clear: "to complete mineralization—a chemical reaction or series of reactions that transform an organic compound into an inorganic one—of the original compounds."--R8R (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Origin and occurrence

On Earth

• "Since lead commonly reacts with sulfur (see Lead(II)), it is classified as a chalcophile under the Goldschmidt classification."

True, but what is the significance of this statement?

The idea was that we somehow mention the attraction for sulfur and that it influences how lead is found in the nature. Could you suggest a better idea?

I've fixed this with a little ce. Sandbh (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2: "The main lead-bearing mineral is galena (PbS), which is mostly found with zinc ores." Duplicates content in paragraph 1: "Lead is easily extracted from ore, and, indeed, the mineral form of lead sulfide, galena, has been known for millennia..." and "Lead's chalcophilic character is close to those of zinc and copper; as such, it is usually extracted together with these metals."

I fail to see any duplication here. The first sentence stresses that galena is the main lead mineral. The second one mentions that galens has been known for millenia. The third one discusses lead in general rather than one particular mineral.--R8R (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: From the Mineral article: "A mineral is a naturally occurring chemical compound,[1]". Could we have the galena picture back? Sandbh (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I often give in for others' ideas, but I'd want to stand on this one.

• First and foremost, minerals sort of belong to the section where we actually talk about minerals as we have a section about minerals where we mention galena.
• Second, we talk here about chemistry and compounds. The whole talk sort of implies simplified talk of acid--base reactions, salt ion exchanges and so forth, free from impurities, but having a mineral, an impure compound, does not fit.
• Third, this sort of defies the logical chain I've wanted to have: we first describe basics (physics), then use it to connect it with the next thing (chemistry), which we use to connect it with the next thing (occurrence), which we use to connect it with the next thing (history), etc. We actually use the information from this section to connect it with the idea why it is galena that lead is found in. Making these connections helps make the reader feel smart, something I wouldn't want to lose.--R8R (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

History

• "The major reason for the spread of lead production, rather than its utility, was its association with silver, which may be obtained by burning galena, a widespread lead mineral."

The reference to galena has been previously mentioned.

It has. But as you can see, this sentence summarizes some info from paragraphs on ancient history from prehistory to fall of Rome. This is sort of information that is relevant to two topics: here, Abundance and History. I find duplicating acceptable if not desirable in such cases.--R8R (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Because silver was extensively used as a decorative material and an exchange medium, lead deposits came to be worked..."

Overlaps with paragraph 1.

• "The Romans obtained lead mostly as a by-product of extensive silver smelting."

Overlaps with content earlier in this paragraph, and in paragraph 1.

I think the right action is to specify that the Romans obtained lead for the same reason pre-Roman miners did. (You can't normally assume that if that's what they did in 3000 BCE then it's going to stay this way forever.) Better now?--R8R (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Consequently, the Latin word for the metal, plumbum, was the origin of the periodic table symbol Pb and the English word "plumbing" and its derivatives—even though some Romans, such as Vitruvius, were able to recognize the health dangers of lead."

There is no logical connection between the recognition of the health dangers of lead and its chemical symbol of Pb.

I agree; someone must've rewritten the sentence this way.

Agree. Done.--R8R (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Lead poisoning—a condition in which one becomes dark and cynical—was called "saturnine", after the ghoulish god of Saturn; the metal was also considered the father of all metals."

There is no logical connection between saturnine and lead being considered the father of all metals.

True. I though it was clear there is none. I'll replace the semicolon with a period.

Doesn't read right now. Lead as father of all metals---really? I understood that Saturn was king of the Roman gods. Is that where the connection is? This ref may be helpful.

You're right. The worst thing is that I did know that, but I forgot it. I'll add it.--R8R (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see it's done before I got to this; if it was you, thank you.--R8R (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Lead also bore a close relation to antimony: both elements commonly occur as sulfides (galena and stibnite), often together."

Duplicated content re galena.

While I keep thinking this duplication is justified, I'll note this part focuses on relation with antimony, which we haven't even mentioned by this point

• "Lead plumbing in Western Europe may have been continued..."

What does this mean? Continued to be installed or continued to be used?

A good question. I'll check later.--R8R (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing I knew and forgot. The problem was that lead was increasingly difficult to mine as the Romans dug out most lead they could. Lead imployed in, say, aqueducts continued its service (many were, however, destroyed in the turmoil during the late (decadent) antiquity and early mediaval era with its Migration Period). That's a simplified answer, but it gives you the perspective.--R8R (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...one effect of such prolonged contact with lead was rotting teeth; replacements were often made of lead..."

Why lead, given lead is so soft?

I'll check later. My idea is that it tastes nice and that you don't really need superstrong metrial for a tooth.--R8R (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by this idea.--R8R (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you check that the reference says they were "often" made of lead; and that the lead induced a sweet breath? Sandbh (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's great that this caught your eye. I checked the book (wasn't able to find it immediately, but found a report that attributes this info to it. These concepts -- rotting teeth and lead teeth implants -- are used in the same para, but not linked. I applaud to your common sense. I'll remove mentions of teeth implants.--R8R (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The last major innovation to impose contact with lead on humans was adding tetraethyllead to gasoline, a practice originating in the United States in 1921"

The reference to the use of lead as an additive is repeated in the previous paragraph.

where?--R8R (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"...with invention of gasoline in the late 19th century, lead was extensively used as an additive." Sandbh (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll remove the late 19th century mention. Lead in gasoline became so important with TEL, even according to the source. Thanks for noticing. This must've been a mistake.--R8R (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Classical era

Given they were the power-users of lead, what did the Romans use it for apart from pipes? Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Cosmetics and sweeteners is what immediately comes to my mind. Also possibly plates. I'll check, however, later.--R8R (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

from this book: "As early as during the days of the Roman Empire of Julius Caesar, the ruling upper-class made extensive use of lead water pipelines, lead-coated wine vats, lead pigmented cooking and drinking utensils, having acquired the necessary manufacturing skills from their Greek conquerors. The Greeks had also gathered rainwater from roofs protected by a lead covering, via lead-covered and guttering and drain-pipes and stored water in lead-lined cisterns."--R8R (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll focus on pipelines and cooking and drinking utensils. I have no doubt about cosmetics at some point at least and also possibly other minor uses, but these two usually dominate the story. Added the part re pottery to the text.--R8R (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I've wanted to talk about inclusion of all Roman uses. They are complimented by the new quote (which I love), but do we want to have such a lengthy list? There are many uses in other eras that I didn't include (modernity, Renaissance and so on). I once knew many Renaissance-era uses, of which I included only a few because I valued quality over quantity (the other ones were not so interesting/characteristic). So I propose we focus on waterworks, pottery, and maybe roofing, with additional uses mentioned as a period (from coffin linings to warfare) if at all.--R8R (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave them in given Roman production rates of lead were not exceeded until the Industrial Revolution, which is an amazing factoid and led me to wonder what the Romans did with all that lead. It also supports the quote box---it truly was a Lead Age. I don't care about the Renaissance so much, nor modernity given most lead goes into batteries and restrictions on lead use. BUT I'm not fixated on the Roman list so feel free to trim. Sandbh (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: One more, re the quote box. I changed the citation style solely for the purpose to match the rest of the references. I think uniformity is good and I thought you originally used your style because that was what what you were used to in your alma mater?

Also, Google Books lists only one author. That's why I removed the other one. Can you confirm there are two?--R8R (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I tried to use the style given at Template:Quote box but if I didn't it's certainly closer now. Quotes I've seen elsewhere have simple attributions---they don't go into all the detail you'd find in the reference details. The book containing the article in which the quote comes from has one editor. The article has two authors. I think I've fixed this all up now. Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• "(Prehistory and early history:) Lead has been used for thousands of years because it is widespread in nature, and is easy to extract and work with." is the opening line in History. What I am missing is just a simple mentioning of its discovery. Can we make that from implicit to explicit? -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There was no recorded discovery, you see. It's been there with humans before they started to record what they did. And there's nobody to attribute it to. So at best we could have something like the Vikings discovering the Americas who are not considered the European discoverers (but we don't have even that).--R8R (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I cannot bring my point any further than I did. It's just a reader's impression: how was it discovered? Any pure mineral? First melted ore ever because of low melting pont? But yes, sources. ((hail those who invented melting lead but could not write the recipe for us ;- )). -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Middle Ages and the Renaissance

• In Lead#Middle_Ages_and_the_Renaissance, it says: "Lead was a key material in parts of the printing press, ... and lead dust was commonly inhaled by press operators, causing lead poisoning.[112]". I have no access to the source, but I'd think that casting lead into types is a relevant cause of poisoning (through ingestion and inhalation). -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  Probably. I have not an explicit mentioning in any source by now, though. Besides, I don't think we need to mention lead toxicity in every use. This idea already goes throughout the story. Moreover, that couldn't've been as dangerous as it was for typesetters simply because of far less contacting with lead.--R8R (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Production

• "Production and consumption of lead is increasing worldwide."

Why?

Mmm. I'll read a report to have a good reply.--R8R (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have an answer but I want to understand what you want to know. The demand for lead is increasing because it's so useful in batteries (not only that, but that's the main reason). The supply is dependent on geology of each separate country.--R8R (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The original statement seemed quite odd in light of all the other efforts to limit the use of lead. Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I read another time. I did write it was put out of use in those applications where it did affect humans, but I added that paragraph saying that the battery was the reason why lead mining continued in the world, giving some stats re Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and China. I think the context is okay, but if you think it's not, please feel free to correct it.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Primary production

• "This reaction releases heat once it starts."

What's the significance of this statement?

There was some but I cut it. So we don't need this here, too, I agree.--R8R (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "in which zinc is added to lead and adsorbs silver, which dissolves in zinc many times more actively than in lead..."

I don't understand this sentence.

Silver dissolves at a higher rate in zinc than in lead. Zinc is added to lead and adsorbs silver, freeing lead from it.

• "The process uses anodes of impure lead and cathodes of pure lead in an electrolyte of silica fluoride."

This duplicates what was said earlier in this subsection: "A promising alternative involves direct smelting without an intermediate compound involved; hydrometallurgical extraction, in which anodes of impure lead and a cathodes of pure lead are dissolved in an electrolyte) is another technique that is being explored."

I'll check the book later--R8R (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Lead: The facts, these are essentially the same thing, but it is not economically feasible to run it as a first-stage process rather than a refining process. I mentioned that in the text, but you'll probably note duplication anyway. I just don't know where to put it yet.--R8R (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to get this struck?--R8R (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary production

• "...(though both, with the essential difference being the greater variability of what could be extracted as the final product after the latter)"

Don't understand what this means.

Perhaps I forgot to finish the sentence. I'll check the source later.--R8R (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

reworded.--R8R (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...input battery paste..."

What is this?

What if we just say "battery paste" instead?--R8R (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's confusing because the expression "battery paste" is introduced without any context as to what battery paste is. Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. Google's first autocomplete suggestion after I typed "battery" was "battery paste." The term denotes the working material in the battery. I found "active material" and "active mass" are also used in English and used the former to explain the term. Is it better now?--R8R (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited to make the meaning clearer. I worry that someone will ask about the composition of battery paste, and how it is produced (the lead-acid battery article does not make this clear) but let's see how we go. Sandbh (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Applications

Elemental form

• "The low melting point makes casting of lead easy, and therefore small arms ammunition and shotgun pellets can be cast with minimal technical equipment."

Duplicated content.

Not sure if I should agree or argue against. Anyway, the idea was that we explain why we lead is useful and its uses. I'll probably agree on this one, though.--R8R (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "It is also...denser than other common metals."

So?

Retains velocity better. But I'll cut it, too.--R8R (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...the heeling effect..."

What is this?

I've added a wikilink.--R8R (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "It acts like a lubricant and, in low concentrations, also as a chip breaker."

What's a chip breaker?

a shoulder in a machine tool made by grinding a groove parallel to the cutting edge or by attaching a plate to the top to form a wall against which the chip produced in turning or other machining will be broken up--Merriam-Webster.

I'll leave a bolded note to remember to add it to the article later.--R8R (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Or wait. Sandbh, do we have to explain this term?--R8R (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I feel we need to do something as my original question still stands. I've never heard of a chip breaker.

Oh, sure thing then. After I read what it was I thought this is something everyone would know. Maybe it's due to differences within English.--R8R (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Biological and chemical effects

Biological

• Paragraph 3 appears to say the same thing twice with its reference to enzymatic interactions. Or are their two different ways of interacting with enymes? The second sentence re mimicking appears to repeat what was said in the previous paragraph about lead pretending to be calcium.

Seems okay for me. Here's the para as is:

The primary cause of lead's toxicity is its predilection for binding to the sulfhydryl groups found on many enzymes, thereby interfering with their proper functioning.[170] Part of lead's toxicity results from its ability to mimic and displace other metals which act as cofactors in many enzymatic reactions.[172] Lead salts are thus very quickly and efficiently absorbed by the body, accumulating in it and leading to both chronic and acute poisoning.[173]

and in my (simplified) interpretation:

The primary cause of lead's toxicity is that it binds to the sulfhydryl groups of many enzymes. And this is the case for many other (not only those sulfhydryl-contatining) enzymes as well: part of lead's toxicity results from its ability to mimic and displace other metals (including calcium as we described just above) which act as cofactors in many enzymatic reactions. Since it interacts with so many enzymes, it can always find some to get absorbed by the body with, accumulating in it and leading to both chronic and acute poisoning.[173]

--R8R (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please write something in response? I think the issue is not troublesome, and tried to explain my point.--R8R (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Paragraph four appears to repeat what was said in the previous paragraph about mimicry.

Your concern is understandable. This paragraph goes into detail with the thesis about mimicry. It's the sentence "Lead salts are thus very quickly and efficiently absorbed by the body, accumulating in it and leading to both chronic and acute poisoning.[173]" that prevents from putting that info straight there, as we have to make that conclusion easy to follow. If you have any ideas, they're welcome, but it's fine for me now.--R8R (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• In paragraph 5, why is lead toxic if so much of it is excreted in urine? Please turn the reference to the USEPA into a citation.

"the rest will be excreted by an adult through urine and feces within a few weeks of exposure" -- this seems to be self-explaining, doesn't it? Weeks of exposure is a long period.

As for turning reference into citation: of course.

@Sandbh: could I ask you to strike those comments you think are resolved?--R8R (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, will aim to do this tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Re the para on chronic exposure, perhaps the section could be divided into acute and chronic subsections?

I would argue against that. Biological mechanisms are basically the same and they make an essential part of the section.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Does paragraph 7 refer to acute or chronic poisoning?

Both. The difference is not that big given lead stays in a body for weeks. The source does not even specify.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Paragraph 9 mixes ideas about children, adults, and the fact that lead poisoning mainly occurs in the workplace. Sandbh (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll move the last idea to Sources of exposure. That'll settle it, as that's the only sentence to mention adults.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I reckon the article should say something about the impact of elevated lead levels on crime rates. Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's great that you remembered about this. I mentioned this, noting this is not a universally accepted hypothesis.--R8R (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Source of exposure

• I feel this section would be better if it started off with the main exposure route in adults. Sandbh (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I won't insist, but for now it doesn't seem right to me: you should first know what the danger is, and then how you get to face it.

"One is exposed to lead when..." -- "is it dangerous? should it be interesting?" -- I think this would summarize my personal reaction if I got the exposure routes before any description of poisoning effects.--R8R (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Properties section (Chemical subsection) and Chemistry section

I find these two parts of the article to have too much repetition. For example, one part talks about the formation of the oxide, and halides, and reactions with acids, then this subject matter is revisited in the other part. I wonder if it would help to limit the properties section to atomic, physical, and isotopes, and then place all the chemistry related content into one section? Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I remember we once had a discussion on this but I don't remember who thought what and why. I was also unable to find it on this page and your talk page archives. Do you happen to remember the discussion and arguments for merging and against?--R8R (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember it vaguely. IIRC, the only way you could really split the two was to have "Properties" about Pb the metal and how it reacts, and then "Chemistry" about its compounds, kind of like how Holleman & Wiberg tends to do it in a shopping-list sort of format. But I'm not really a fan of that format, because it's repetitive and neglects that both are too interrelated. So I think I actually like Sandbh's solution. Now I'm not sure though if "bulk properties" (as I think one of us suggested) is the best name for a section including atomic properties and nuclear properties, though; perhaps we should indeed just leave it at "properties". Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll probably agree. As for the section title, I'd pick "Physical properties". "Bulk properties" would be possible for the subsection. Is there a chance that you could take care of the issue? I thought I would be freer after I'm done with the winter examination period, but unfortunately, I'm still not.--R8R (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Focus on your exams; the article will be here when you're good and ready. Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for caring, but no worries. The exams are over by now, and the examination period ended well. So I'm not as busy as I was last month, but I thought I would have more time still.--R8R (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Exams are over and went well? Very cool (as I'm sure it is over there) ^_^ We're expecting an average of 38 C° down here over the next 4 days. --Sandbh (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

R8R, I see you edited it from a direct translation of the Russian сессия! ^_^ Hopefully things are fine and everything is cool (bt not too cool ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Things are fine; in fact, the exams ended so well that now I am entitled for monthly state grants (which are next to nothing, however). As for cool, I just checked, it's -3 deg C outside, and lots of snow around is absolutely great. My favorite wintertime conditions!

Boy, 38 deg C is a lot. Personally, I can hardly stand 30 degrees, and 38 is just wow. Hope you'll make it fine through this ardor.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a little reorganising. My first impression is that the Properties section and the Chemistry section look a lot sharper now. I haven't checked yet for any remaining duplication within the Chemistry section. Sandbh (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at your reorganization. On my first look, it seems good except do we really have to separate the confusion with tin and antimony? It's a thing that falls finely within the timeline but now, it stands out for no obvious reason.--R8R (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No we don't. I was trying it out to see what it'd look like. If you don't like it we need to see what else we could do with it. It's an interesting part of the history of lead. But maybe we could put it somewhere else. Sandbh (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Location and titles as of now are great. I like them.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I will only complain at the current location of Etymology. First section was fine, first subsection within History was fine. But now, we've told the whole story and only at the end getting at how the subject got its name. Seems illogical to me.--R8R (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I put it right after history when writing Fe, although in hindsight I should probably have put it just before (I'll change it). I agree that the current location is not ideal. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked again at etymology and probably used up all the time I was going to allocate to striking out things already done :(

Anyway, I found this etymology site which says the etymology is uncertain, and this extraordinary site which says, "We can identify many different roots, even the three main European branches of the Indo-European language group have five different roots (some related) for their name of this common metal." My conclusion is that the etymology of lead really is uncertain. I feel therefore that the article needs to say no more than lead's Old English origin. What the article does currently say about the complex etymology of lead conveys (with respect, R8R) little useful or interesting information. So I've boldly deleted the etymology section and added a few words about the etymology of lead to the lead section. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The phrase you are referring to points at the fact there are five roots in all of IE languages (think about the word "red" (červeň, krasny, karmir, etc.) to draw a parallel). Moreover, it lists etymologies of each of those roots, even those four not found in English. The mentioned theory of how the English lead was borrowed from Irish was in place some time ago, but it's mostly rejected now. Moreover, the source I've had as the main source on that section (Proto-Germanic dictionary) is very respected among the linguists; so is that Proto-IE database, although it is not as common. As for interesting, it depends, sure. However, I find that interesting; wouldn't probably dig into it otherwise.

In general, I think that move was hasty.--R8R (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so we need to look again at this one. As an example, Wiberg discusses lead using the following headings:

1. Elemental lead

Occurrence

Isotopes

Historical remarks (one small font paragraph on historical uses, toxicity, and etymology)

Preparation

Physical properties

Chemical properties

Lead in compounds

Lead ions

Uses of lead

2. Lead (II) (plumbous) compounds

Organic lead (II) compounds

3. Lead (IV) (plumbic) compounds

Organic lead (IV) compounds

4. The lead-acid battery -- Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking to see if the etymology section can be rewritten chronologically, from old to new, rather than from new to old, and to add some dates to the proto languages. If that can be done then an etymology sub-sub-section could fit nicely under the Prehistory and history sub-section. Sandbh (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, I've done it. Still need to check if I've got everything. Sandbh (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I am open to new ideas here, but I keep thinking my original was best so far. I am not all that keen on fitting etymology into chronology for a sound (I think) reason: they are different. History is a regular story. I won't discuss why I go chronological here, as there's no argument on this. In comparison, I don't think Etymology should be chronological. Unlike History, most of which is relatively clear, same clarity is found in Etymology only from Old English onward. (That is not to say our information is bad as uncertain: most protolinguists today would agree with what we have, but History is far less doubtful about Roman lead (unless noted) or that the Ancient Egyptians used it for cosmetics with nobody at all arguing about this.)

From a reader's perspective, I think this is also justified: one can imagine history from scratch because it's not really "from scratch," as people have some general understanding about prehistory and early history; at least, that should be true about the concepts we operate in Prehistory as we don't mention too much there. That's not the case for linguistics, however, as fewer people are generally interested in lingustics enough to look into protolanguages, so we start off with what they surely can handle -- ME, OE, and then go into Proto-G and Proto-IE.--R8R (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved a reworded Etymology subsection out of the History section and into its own section after Origin and occurrence, and before History. I think this flows about right. The lithium article does something similar with its section sequence of Properties; Occurrence; History (etymology addressed in first para); Production. I had a look at the articles for the first 20 elements plus Fe, Cu, As, Ag, Sn, Sn, Au and Hg. For what it's worth, etymology is addressed within the history section 22 times out of 28. On most other occasions, etymology occurs just before or just after history. The exceptions are sulfur, which opens with a Spelling and etymology section, and gold, which opens with an Etymology section. Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I only separated the sentence on the verb to lead from the rest of that para, as it stands out.--R8R (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice! Sandbh (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Note (j) says: "The Romans were aware of the potential health problems lead could cause, as well as the fact that copper was used far more commonly for Roman vessels than lead.

The second part of the note doesn't make sense. What did you intend to say here? That the Romans were aware of lead toxicity and that, therefore, they used copper more often for vessels than lead? If so, this needs a reference—it isn't clear to me that this was in fact the case. Sandbh (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You got that right except that "therefore" doesn't belong here. I am left uncertain if all Romans realized it. As I currently understand it, some Romans did know that indeed, yet people still used it. Nowadays people, too, know that smoking tobacco is dangerous, and yet many do it. It seems to me, however, that the fact that lead could cause problems was not as publicly acknowledged as that of smoking, though I never saw that statement emphasized. Now that you drew my attention to this, I'll check later.

IIRC copper was cheaper than lead. That was why copper was more popular.--R8R (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll provide a reference but I am yet uncertain as for what exact claim do I need to strengthen by a ref and what is not clear?--R8R (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The note still doesn't make sense. The first bit, where it says, "The Romans were aware of the potential health problems lead could cause," is OK. The second bit, "as well as the fact that copper was used far more commonly for Roman vessels than lead." appears to tell me that the Romans were aware of the fact that copper was used far more commonly for Roman vessels than lead. It does not make sense to talk abut something that a society is aware of as a "fact," as if it was analysing itself. That is something that external commentators do not the societies themselves. And saying that copper was used far more commonly for Roman vessels than lead, goes against the whole "Roman Lead Age" thing, unless you mean to say that Roman vessels were mostly made of lead-coated copper? That would make be plausible, but it needs a reference. Sandbh (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That sentence originally read something like "However, the theory is criticized for the Romans were aware..."

As for vessels, see the following para: "It would seem therefore that must was boiled in cauldrons of lead, although Scarborough is reluctant to weaken his case, insisting that "one needs to read these texts carefully which mention a 'preference' for lead over bronze to realize that the Romans most often used bronze cauldrons (copper and tin in alloy), not those of lead" and that the short boiling time would not have contaminated the juice in any event. But copper and bronze are suspect as well. Not only, says Pliny, was the best bronze alloyed with ten percent lead and tin (XXXIV.95) but "When copper vessels are coated with stagnum [a lead alloy], the contents have a more agreeable taste and the formation of destructive verdigris is prevented" (XXXIV.160)." source. Again, this makes sense if we present it as how someone criticized the Roman catastrophic lead poisoning theory.--R8R (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This is very good since it prompted me to look closely at the role of lead poisoning in the fall of the Roman Empire. That link you sent me is quite good, too. It may be a bit iffy re whether it would survive FAC scrutiny as a reliable source, but it at least has some very good reliable sources in it, which can be used.

I think what you have at the moment on the role of lead poisoning in the fall of the Roman Empire needs more balance. The Encyclopedia Romana sums up the start of the argument well enough:

"A 1983 article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Jerome Nriagu, a geochemist, rekindled a debate that had been dormant for almost two decades. There, and in a book published later that year, he argued that "lead poisoning contributed to the decline of the Roman empire." [I note Nriagu is a geochemist, with presumably no background in history]. Yet, a review by Scarborough, a pharmacist and classicist, found the book to be "so full of false evidence, miscitations, typographical errors, and a blatant flippancy regarding primary sources that the reader cannot trust the basic arguments." [I note Scarborough's more relevant background]. He concluded that, although ancient authorities were aware of lead poisoning, it was not endemic in the Roman empire nor caused its fall. Waldron, a specialist in both occupational medicine and archaeology, [italics added] also criticized the author for not using primary sources and being uncritical of the translated material that he did use, cautioning that "The decline of the Roman Empire is a phenomenon of great complexity and it is simplistic to ascribe it to a single cause." The criticism still rankled more than thirty years later, Nriagu retorting in an interview that "Scarborough knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about lead poisoning, Absolutely zero." Such was the contention that the topic evoked."

"Almost twenty years earlier, Gilfillan had insisted (his "novel theory" restating a notion first proposed in German by Kobert in 1909) that "lead poisoning is to be reckoned the major influence in the ruin of the Roman culture, progressiveness, and genius," threatening the cognition and fertility of the nobility. Needleman and Needleman demonstrate that the decline of the Roman aristocracy can as easily be explained by the simple desire not to marry or to rear few or no children. In 18 BC and AD 9, Augustus had sought to promote marriage and encourage procreation. "And yet, marriages and the rearing of children did not become more frequent, so powerful were the attractions of a childless state" (Tacitus, Annals, III.25).

"In a review of the life span of emperors and aristocrats, Scheidel dismisses any impact of lead ingestion on fertility. "Nor is there any need to suspect that the incidence of marital sterility in the Roman ruling class might have been much higher than in other groups, times, and places." Drasch found that the average lead burden in Rome was not significantly higher than in the legionary camp and provincial capital at Augsburg in Bavaria. In Britain, the skeletal lead burden was even higher than in Rome. Still, Nriagu insists that "one of the principle, probable causes of the internal weaknesses" of the Roman empire was lead poisoning of the aristocracy."

The story continues, here:

"Given the gluttonous habits of Roman aristocrats, it would be no surprise if they showed the impact of lead in their diets, Nriagu believed. Here's how he described "the dull-witted and absent-minded Claudius," whom he considered most likely to have suffered lead poisoning: "He had disturbed speech, weak limbs, an ungainly gait, tremor, fits of excessive and inappropriate laughter and unseemly anger, and he often slobbered." However, the researcher admitted that the cause of these maladies was "a matter of longstanding debate."

Indeed, his own lead-poisoning theory was quickly, even vehemently disputed. In 1984, for example, classicist John Scarborough authored "The Myth of Lead Poisoning Among the Romans: An Essay Review" and tore Nriagu's argument apart.

Scarborough wrote that Nriagu's basic premise couldn't be trusted because of sloppy work. He also concluded that the Romans were aware of the harm lead could cause, that lead poisoning wasn't endemic in their society and that Rome did not fall because of it.

In an interview Wednesday, Nriagu stood by his work. The professor emeritus of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan said that "Scarborough knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about lead poisoning. Absolutely zero."

Still others followed up on the question. Three decades after Nriagu's paper, a team of archaeologists and scientists examined how lead pipes contaminated ancient Roman "tap water." By measuring lead isotopes in the sediment of the Tiber River and Trajanic Harbor, they estimated that the piped water probably contained 100 times as much lead as local spring water.

Yet French researcher Hugo Delile and his team, reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014, concluded that such concentrations were "unlikely to have been truly harmful." The group also claimed that enough criticism of Nriagu's theory had been amassed over three decades to largely debunk it.

"Lead is no longer seen as the prime culprit of Rome’s demise," Delile wrote. "

…more to follow. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to delete the whole note, which currently reads as:

"The sweeteners the Romans made were often prepared in lead vessels; this led to the formation of poisonous lead(II) acetate, which accumulated in the products that the sweeteners were added to, wine in particular. Lead containers further sweetened their contents as well as helping to preserve them.[104] In comparison, copper vessels spoiled the taste of wine. The fact that Julius Caesar fathered only one child, as well as the alleged sterility of his successor, Caesar Augustus, have also been attributed to lead poisoning.[105] The Romans were aware of the potential health problems lead could cause, as well as the fact that copper was used far more commonly for Roman vessels than lead."

The start of the note does not make sense, since the sweeteners the Romans made were based on sugar or lead, so there is no need to say that the sugar of lead sweeteners were made in lead vessels which led to the formation of sugar of lead. The note itself adds too much weight to the argument that lead caused the fall of the Roman Empire. The last sentence is still problematic and needs a reference. The problem is that this statement would be attributed to Scarborough but Pliny says the best bronze (copper) was alloyed with ten percent lead and tin (XXXIV.95) and "When copper vessels are coated with stagnum [a lead alloy], the contents have a more agreeable taste and the formation of destructive verdigris is prevented" (XXXIV.160). It seems like too many contradictions to be bothered with. And you have already mentioned that the Romans were aware of the potential health problems of lead, and why they used it anyway, in the previous paragraph. 03:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

See also: "Although Roman writers commented on the toxicity of lead, classic chronic lead poisoning was first described only in the 7th century AD. Skeletal lead content increased significantly in the Roman era, but peaked at a level only 41-47% of that of modern Europeans. The authors thus suggest that chronic lead poisoning did not contribute significantly to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West."

Another one: "This article focuses on lead use in the Roman Empire as an example and attempts to address some of the major concerns voiced by opponents of Nriagu’s 1983 article, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, on saturnine gout in the Roman Empire. Despite new theories formulated since 1983, current archeological evidence does not match the claims of widespread use of leaden vessels made by historical accounts. Although historical sources are consistent, more substantive archeological evidence is needed before convincing arguments can be made in favor of the role of lead poisoning in the downfall of the Roman Empire."

I boldly removed the note and amended the text in the article. Don't have time to fully do the citations yet. Sandbh (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to have the note go. Can we get it back?

The very point is that we explain the mechanism of how people were even harmed by lead; then the two examples with Caesars; then a critique.

You see, "lead helped cause the fall of Rome" is a bold claim that I've seen throughout the Internet and I want to both have it and explain it, including that it's not the consensus. I could take having to be bothered with it despite all contradictions (and I'll try in a few hours). Let's see what we can make of it.--R8R (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have carefully re-read your comment. I think I'll agree.--R8R (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I was able to fill the six references you left there. Will now try to standardize the citation style in general.--R8R (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I reckon this is looking good now. Just need to add a few cites. We could try Lead Poisoning and Rome, and see how it goes. (this site gets mentioned in other reliable ancient history books). Sandbh (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

References

I could not solve this:

• Now #102, in Lead#Classical_era: <ref name="epa.gov">EPA,OA,OEAEE,OWC, US. "Lead Poisoning: A Historical Perspective". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 7 February 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>

CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (and bad fmt too, DP)' dead link

• Now #196, in Lead#Environmental: <ref>United Nations Environment Programme, Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (2010). Final review of scientific information on lead (PDF). United Nations Environment Programme. pp. 11–33.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>

CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list; I could not open the pdf (to check authors; same as publisher? Use authorlink?) -DePiep (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you De Piep. I believe both of these have been fixed now. We will have to check all refs before we go to FAC. Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'm a bit expanding the writing here because I have not enough control & access to the sources. -DePiep (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Links not working

• Macomber 1996, p. 230
  
• Kroonen 2013, *lauda-, and Kroonen listed at least two other times

fixed these.--R8R (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Query if these sources can be regarded as reliable

• Universität Freiburg. "Binder Zintl-Phasen" [Binary Zintl Phases] (in German)
  

Doesn't look very fancy, but it's coming from an actual academic university. I don't see why not.--R8R (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Winter, Mark. "Lead»geological information [WebElements Periodic Table]". www.webelements.com. Retrieved 9 March 2016
  

Yes, there's been a long-standing consensus against webelements. I wanted to find a good replacement but couldn't find any. Will give it another shot later.

Got a replacement.--R8R (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Nikolayev, Sergei, ed. (2012). "*lAudh-". Indo-European etymology. starling.rinet.ru. Retrieved 21 August 2016
  

Absolutely. During my brief introduction into the world of protolinguistics, I've read a couple of scientific papers on the subject. There was one that actually referenced this datanase and regarded it as an important source (there are few detailed dictionaries of Proto-IE). I'm following suit.

• "Lead in history". corrosion-doctors.org. Retrieved 13 February 2016.
  

Meh. I'll find something else just in case.--R8R (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I reckon this ref and all subsequent ones save for the last one were intended to be temporary. Another thing I simply forgot about :( I am growing uncomfortable about this.--R8R (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't take too much work to find better sources. Sandbh (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Queen Elizabeth I". medicalbag.com. 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  
• Harris, W. (2013). "10 Innovations That Led to the Modern Bullet". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved 13 February 2016.
  
• Hessa (2009). "History lesson: lead, mercury and leeches were used to whiten complexions in the 1400s". whiterskin.info. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
  

Done by this point for now.--R8R (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Rooney, C. "Contamination at Shooting Ranges" (PDF). The Lead Group Inc. Retrieved 7 April 2007.
  

Got this one.--R8R (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• "About Us". thebulletworks.net. 2010. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
  

I decided it proves a sentence I wouldn't want to have in even with a source on my hands.

@Sandbh: are we good to go?--R8R (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I like this solution! ^_^ If Sandbh thinks we're good to go, I'll start the FAC as you requested. Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Progressive Dynamics, Inc. "How Lead Acid Batteries Work: Battery Basics". progressivedyn.com. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
  

This one is okay to me. The sentence says "See [no.] for details on how a lead--acid battery works" or the like, and the reference points at an info page set up by an enterprise that works with it. I'd be okay with that.--R8R (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Strange formatting

• Thomson, T. (1830). The History of Chemistry. Colburn, H. and Bentley, R. p. 74.

That's just regular formatting with {{cite book}}. See, for example, here.--R8R (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing doi

• Boltwood, B. B. (1907). "On the ultimate disintegration products of the radio-active elements. Part II. The disintegration products of uranium". American Journal of Science. 23: 77–88.
• Callataÿ, F. de (2005). "The Graeco-Roman Economy in the Super Long-Run: Lead, Copper, and Shipwrecks". Journal of Roman Archaeology. 18: 361–372.

Added.--R8R (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Place of publication
Sometimes this is given; sometimes it isn't. Need to be consistent. Sandbh (talk).

I've removed those present. I genuinely see little point in having them anyway.--R8R (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

isbn formating
Some have 10 digits; some have 13; some have figure dashes; some don't. Wikipedia:ISBN notes:

"Stylistically, please:

Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, [they most nearly always are] as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007, and issued to new books. [Actually, 13-digit ISBNs are now available for all books, even pre-2007 ones]

Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of hyphens varies between books." Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

All ISBNs are now 13-digits and all are hyphenated.--R8R (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

titlecase for title
In ref #149 "FIREARMS TUTORIAL" I have turned this title into titlecase. IIRC this is our common ref style, but I could not find this in our ref documentation. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Consistency of case for book titles and journal articles
Some book titles are in title case; some are not. All should be in title case as per MOS. Some journal article names are in title case; some are not. Need to be consistent (there is no need to have journal article names in title case). Sandbh (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have standardized references to books and journal articles (titles).

To do: other references (report, web, news); date vs. year; check if access-date format is consistent.--R8R (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that MOS that discusses capitalization of titles? I am unable to find it.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Capital_letters Sandbh (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Finished?

@Sandbh: sorry to be annoying, but is there anything left to be done?--R8R (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping me anytime. I believe we're good to go! Sandbh (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Double sharp:--R8R (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: So, does that mean we can start the FAC now? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes.--R8R (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)