User:Praseodymium-141/Neodymium/To-do

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

This page is about the GA Review of Neodymium. For the list on what to improve, see User:Bli231957/Neodymium/Not done.

This is for reference on what I need to do.

Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Hey, I'll take this one. The article looks to be in good shape. I'll be comparing its structure to rare-earth GAs lanthanum and europium, and FA thorium. I'll be a little picky because of the article's high visibility. Any edits I make to the article will be minor (and not something I'll be a stickler on). Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

Citations needed:

  • "Some neodymium compounds have colors that vary based upon the type of lighting."
 Done: Added citation.
  • Last paragraph in uranyl acetate
 Done: Added citation.
  • "the demand for NdFeB magnets is expected to increase significantly in the future." Also, citing the Paris agreement directly probably isn't helpful; a third party source is needed
 Done: Added a third party source.
  • citation [64] to page 102 of [1] doesn't seem to line up
 Not done: not sure what to do.

Other:

  • Does Webelements meet the requirements of a reliable source?
  • Does gelighting meet the requirements of a reliable source?
 Done: webelements is a reliable source, and I changed the source from gelighting to another source.

Continuing[edit]

  • "and is traditionally considered" Traditionally or just considered? (Is there any doubt) Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done: Reworded to "and is considered".
  • "complex spectra of the elements" Link emission spectrum or whatever the most appropriate term is.
 Done: Added a link to emission spectrum.
  • "but changes with the type of lighting, because of the interaction of the sharp light absorption bands of neodymium with ambient light enriched with the sharp visible emission bands of mercury, trivalent europium or terbium" Er... Emission bands of europium or terbium are commonly present in lights?
 I'm not sure what to do here.
  • "extremely-high-power" is this a technical term? If not, "high-power" is preferable Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done: Changed to "high-power".
  • "high-performance hobby DC electric motors" Nd magnets used in hobby motors, but not in industry or commercial applications? Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done: Reworded.
  • "that was present in the classical mischmetal" does this deserve to be in the first paragraph of "physical properties"? I'd put it lower.
 Done: Moved to second paragraph.
  • "Like most other metals in the lanthanide series, neodymium usually only uses three electrons as valence electrons, as after the remaining 4f electrons are strongly bound" I don't understand this sentence.
Not done – please clarify
  • "like all of the lanthanides (except lanthanum, ytterbium, and lutetium, which have no unpaired 4f electrons)" probably should be "many of"
 Done: Changed to "most".
  • "that spalls off and exposes the metal to further oxidation" To be clear, it spalls off without external force?
 Not done
  • The chemical formulae in Chemical properties are unnecessary and clutter the text.
Which formulae do you mean? Please clarify further. Bli231957 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant the formulas in Neodymium compounds. Ovinus (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The list of compounds should not include their full names (just wikilink their formulae), and relatively uncommon ones should be excluded.
Which compounds are relatively common compared to the others (I would put the halides, oxide, hydroxide, carbonate and acetate)? Bli231957 (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Shall I remove their full names or their chemical formulae? Bli231957 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done – please clarify
  • "Neodymium is a quite electropositive element" Needs to be more specific; how electropositive, or compared to what?
 Not done
  • Define "organoneodymium"
 Done: Added a definition of organoneodymium in the section and a see also for organolanthanide chemistry
  • "7*10^18 years, approximately" Why approximately? If there's a huge error bar I'd say "on the order of 7*10^18 years" and then put the error in the isotope box.
 Not done
The same reference is used in the article Praseodymium so I think it should be an RS. Bli231957 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely not; it's a site that sells metallic samples, and has zero editorial oversight.
Not sure
  • I really don't think there should be such an expansive list of neodymium compounds; it distracts. Why not list the most important ones, and then hatnote to Category:Neodymium_compounds? Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    What are the most important neodymium compounds? Bli231957 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know; all I know is that there are too many in the article right now. They shouldn't be in list form, in any case. Ovinus (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think they should be judged by the quality of the actual article on whether they should be included. If there is no article, they definitely should be removed, as we do not even know they exist. I did this with neodymium carbide. Stubs must be removed as well as they are barely notable and not imporantant. Most Start-Class compounds should be removed, but keep the most important 2-3. Anything C-Class or better should be on the list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    For example, I removed the sulfides section, as one is without an article and probably does not exist and the other is an unimportant stub. However, neodymium acetate should be kept as it is B-Class and a relatively important compound. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    I've also removed the non-existent article neodymium(IV) fluoride, and changed the hydride to the nitride (more notable) Bli231957 (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done: Removed non-notable articles
  • "meta states" Does this mean something else than "metastable isotopes"? Never heard of it before Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think it does mean "metastable isotopes". Bli231957 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done: Changed to metastable isotopes"
  • "Neodymium isotopes are used in various scientific applications." Well, sure... probably specify radioactive isotopes Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done
  • "Several neodymium isotopes have been used for the production of other promethium isotopes." Extremely vague; either specify which isotopes (of promethium, at least) or remove Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done
  • "didymos (διδύμος), twin.[8][26]..." Do we need six sources for an etymology? I'm assuming some of the sources are for previous sentences; I'd move them closer if possible Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done
  • "Because of its role ... for expanded production." Is this one source enough to include this sentence? (Do any other important sources make similar claims) Ovinus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done
  • I agree with the WP:TECHNICAL tag on Physical properties. Also, much of that section isn't even about physical properties—the lead sentence Neodymium is the fourth member of the lanthanide series. is not really a physical property. That stuff should go in Chemical properties. "Metallic neodymium has a bright, silvery metallic luster." should probably be first. See Caesium#Physical properties for a good example. What about other general properties, like conductivity, spectrum, density, melting point?
 Not done
  • Solubility of neodymium salts in water is not discussed. Would be good to say that Nd+3 is generally soluble.
 Not done
  • Strange language sprinkled throughout: "can access the midpoints of pressure and temperature regions"; "has been rapidly increasing owing to the growing population and industrial development" (growing human population? seems a bit obvious)
 Not done
  • "due to the release of radioactive substances during the mining process" – Apparently a bit more description on the mining process is in order; why are there radioactive compounds being released?
 Not done
 Not done
  • Listing of the various neodymium compounds needs to be done in prose form, grouping them by various qualities (color? solubility? etc). Otherwise it's a fairly useless collection
 Not done
  • Questionable sources: [3], [4]

Not sure

  • Why is "R. J. Callow, The Industrial Chemistry of the Lanthanons, Yttrium, Thorium, and Uranium, Pergamon Press, 1967." in further reading? Ovinus (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Praseodymium-141/Neodymium/To-do&oldid=1097969540"