Talk:Vanadium/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The note that the first subsection lacks references is correct, and citations should be added. In particular, I did not understand what this means: "Vanadium has good structural strength and a low fission neutron cross section, making it useful in nuclear applications." What is a fission neutron cross section? How is a low cross section helpful for nuclear applications, and what kind of nuclear applications (military, energy, other)? Crystal whacker (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified this sentence. A metal with low neutron abserbtivity is useful wherever neutrons should be absorbed as little as possible, so I don't see the need to specify applications. Petergans (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, the cross-section at 5 barn is not small (Rubber book, table of isotopes), compared to Fe (2.56 b), Mg (64 mb) so the sentence is removed. Petergans (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cross section is only moderate, but as some fission article state it the formed products have only short or medium half life, while most of the other metals also generate isotopes with long half live. A second thing might be Metallurgy for the Non-metallurgist Harry Chandler puts it it does not alloy with uranium and is therefore usefull for fuel rods.--Stone (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pourbaix diagram

What is the source of the Pourbaix diagram of vanadium? In other words, the image was uploaded by User:Cadmium. Where did he get that information from? It is no different to ask this question than to ask that any other data be cited. I am notifying User talk:Cadmium. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, Cadmium is no longer with us. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get a source for this thing will be difficult. --Stone (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good explanation of the nature of diagram in Shriver & Atkins, Inorganic chemistry, 3rd. edn. p205, with illustration for Mn, not V. Could this serve for verification? Petergans (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the source is not so difficult if one has access to Scifinder. Does anyone we know have this access? Some University teachers and postgrads will have it. I do, but I have to make a special trip into the Uni to get it, by using one of their terminals. Petergans (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student at a major university, and I have access to all the major databases from the library computers. I also own the Shriver and Atkins book which Petergans pointed to, having taken a course on the subject in the last months. I'll see if I can track this down. I'll be looking for some kind of database of Pourbaix diagrams for all the metals. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the University (library?) has a license for a limited number of simultaneous users for SciFinder. Use may be restricted to certain terminals. If you haven't used SciFinder before you will be amazed at its power. A search for pourbaix+vanadium was what I had in mind. I doubt if there is a database of the kind you are thinking of. Petergans (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pourbaix diagram of vanadium, expressing the vanadium speciation as a function of pH and potential at 25 ◦C and an ionic strength of 1M. this might help. --Stone (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It's not a Pourbaix diagram! It's the speciation diagram, as in Grennwood and Earnshaw, p 984. Petergans (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags

I have added "citation needed" tags in a number of obvious places. Some of these are statements about vanadium compounds where the source might be found in the compound's Wikipedia article. However, since Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources in the context of other Wikipedia articles, as I understand it, I am asking for citations, either to the source of the antecedent article or any other source. (I hope that's not too confusing.) Crystal whacker (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to get some of them, and I will search for further references to cover all. --Stone (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reading the article. You did a good job finding what you found. There are other places where I could arbitrarily put tags if I were in a contrarian mood, but I think the main point is that there are some places where citation is still needed. If I were to ask "If the statements themselves were removed, would what remains be worthy of "Good Article" status?" I would say "Probably yes," but for now I am still thinking about it. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minerals

I found hewettite in List of minerals F-J (complete) and patronite in List of minerals N-R (complete) with good external references. Petergans (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion from Gary King

I copy my question and Gary's answer from our respective talk pages. In accordance with his comment here, I am delisting the article for now, with an option open to request a reconsideration from me in the near future if you improve the article in the meanwhile. I prefer this system over placing things "on hold" because I don't want to carry on indefinitely. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary. I see you do a lot of GA reviews, and I'm much newer to the process. I have a GA review open at vanadium. It's a great article, but there are four "citation needed" tags, and as I wrote there, "There are other places where I could arbitrarily put tags if I were in a contrarian mood." Could you take a look and see if it's good enough anyway or if it should be put "on hold" or failed? Thanks for whatever help you can offer. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation needed tags should be resolved before passing the article. The lead should also be expanded, at least with an extra paragraph. A few references need publisher information, like reference 50. Gary King (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note here that after reviewing Stone's changes, I would be willing to pass the article. However, I will not do it myself because I am no longer active here, and Gary King's other concerns might still apply - I've declared a leave of absence and I can't be bothered to check. Sorry.

What to do from here, I'm not sure. Resubmitting it may be necessary, or asking for a second opinion by saying "first reviewer thinks it's okay but is no longer active" could also work. Crystal whacker (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the referencing here to focus too much on narrow primary sources vs broader sources. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved this comment here from WP:GAN, where it did not belong. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some pointers to help the article have a better chance at passing its next GAN.

• The lead still needs to be expanded. Add at least another paragraph.
• There are still a few [citation needed] tags.
• The prose needs more work. For example, "Electron beam melted vanadium" should be "Electron beam-melted vanadium" or "Electron-beam-melted vanadium", choose one. Please copyedit the article.

Gary King (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

• I cited all open [citation needed] tags
• Copy editing, was always the task I had most problems, because as nonnative speaker I most of the time do not see the things every native speaker is aware of
• The lead is the next step (may be today or tomorrow) --Stone (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added only a little.--Stone (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the first reviewer is in a wiki break, would you Garry King pass it now after copy editing or is the lead still too weak? --Stone (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be in limbo. Basically, where we stand right now, is that the article is no longer nominated for GAN. It already failed its nomination. Here's what we can do: Stone, please renominate the article for GAN, going through the normal procedure. Once done, let me know here, and then I will go through the regular procedure of reviewing the article. Gary King (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]