Jump to content

Talk:Cadmium/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FREYWA 06:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. For this review (and subsequent ones?) I will use copper as a reference. FREYWA 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
Don't fry your brain over the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Specific issues will be provided in the comments section. This one is really bad, but I'm giving it a chance!

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See below.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Try and arrange the sections as per WikiProject Elements guidelines. Everything is fine except the layout, particularly Capitalised Words as subsections in the applications section.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    See below.
    C. No original research:
    I don't know if there are sources for the unsourced statements!
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    There is no "Compounds" section.
    B. Focused:
    For example: the "Isotopes" section mentions the longest-lived metastable and the second-longest and third-longest and so on...
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    What do the Jinzu River and the skull-and-crossbones pictures have to do with cadmium? Totally irrelevant. Captions are out-of-context with their corresponding pics.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
Always remember: the six criteria work together!

There are too many issues on here!

I'm too tired now, and I haven't taken a look at the article. But to mention - compounds section, even through would be good, should not be an obstacle to GA status. It's not like there are lot of things to say on cadmium, and it can be covered in Chemical characteristics. Cadmium compounds are (almost) all the same, Cd2+, there are no special cadmium compounds, it's nothing to say. I've taken a look on four other random TM GAs: Mo, Os, Rh, Ni. None of this has a separate Compounds section. Even FA yttrium doesn't. Section arrangement shouldn't be as well - this is a WikiProject standard, not a Wikipedia one or GAN. So I don't find these two relevant to GAN. And please, don't take copper as standard - the article is still imperfect, even through good. (there's just no perfect article, so it's OK). Don't take anything. Just let the standards lead you. Oh yeah, I'll take a better look tomorrow or at the weekend--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with R8R Gtrs on this one. See palladium (recent) - no real need for Compounds section if the chemistry is not really strange. (Of course compounds section is needed for elements that don't behave chemically quite as one would expect, like protactinium.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I wouldn't really call it "not focused" for mentioning those meta states. They don't even take up one sentence! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glaring omission that is missed: Regulations (under Safety section) - just 1 sentence only! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the subsection, the sentence is now in the main section--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another one: Neurological role (under Biological role) - just 1 section only again! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have all the comments been addressed yet? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. FREYWA 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

[edit]
Don't listen to this!
This will bore the happiness out of you!
Problems playing this file? See media help.
This place is for issues only!

Regarding criteria 2B, there are two hitches:

Oh, and here's a problem with the lead:
Isn't copernicium also in group 12?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cn is in group 12, yes, but Cd is not chemically similar to Cn. Remember from the copernicium article that Cn is expected to have a dominant +4 oxidation state; Zn and Cd do not have +4 and only HgF
4 has Hg4+
. FREYWA 09:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article does not mention that copernicium is a metal in group 12, despite not being chemically similar to cadmium. As is stands it sounds like group 12 consists solely of zinc, cadmium and mercury (which even IUPAC doesn't endorse now, though it probably did till 2010, copernicium not having been named until then). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it anyway. :-) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical properties of copernicium are unknown, and I removed info about it. Word "stable" added as a compromise--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FREYWA 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the final criterion, 1A. I'll go through each section.

  • The soft, bluish-white metal is chemically similar to the two other stable metals in group 12, zinc and mercury. First word should be "this".
    Done (though not by me). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you FREYWA 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Average concentration in the earth’s crust is between 0.1 and 0.5 parts per million (ppm). No article at the front and is the sentence referring to cadmium?
  • Cadmium occurs as a minor component in most zinc ores and therefore is a byproduct of zinc production. Cadmium was used for a long time as a pigment and for corrosion resistant plating on steel. Cadmium compounds were used to stabilize plastic. Three sentences all beginning with "Cadmium" - try and merge them!
    Thank you FREYWA 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics
    • Physical properties
    • Chemical properties
      • The most common oxidation state of cadmium is +2, though rare examples of +1 can be found. This doesn't meld with the previous segment.
      • Cadmium burns in air to form brown amorphous cadmium oxide (CdO). The crystalline form of the same compound is dark red and changes color when heated, similar to zinc oxide. These two sentences can be merged.
      • Hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and nitric acid dissolve cadmium by forming cadmium chloride (CdCl
        2        ) cadmium sulfate         (CdSO
        4        ) or cadmium nitrate (Cd(NO
        3        )
        2        )        . No comma.
        Thank you FREYWA 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isotopes
      • Naturally occurring cadmium is composed of 8 isotopes. For two of them, natural radioactivity was observed, and three others are predicted to be radioactive but their decay is not observed, due to extremely long half-life times. The two natural radioactive isotopes are 113Cd (beta decay, half-life is 7.7 × 1015 years) and 116Cd (two-neutrino double beta decay, half-life is 2.9 × 1019 years). The other three are 106Cd, 108Cd (double electron capture), and 114Cd (double beta decay); only lower limits on their half-life times have been set. At least three isotopes - 110Cd, 111Cd, and 112Cd - are stable. Really bad, but I can help. Change to "Naturally occuring cadmium is composed of eight isotopes; of these, 110Cd, 111Cd and 112Cd are stable, 113Cd and 116Cd are radioactive and 106Cd, 108Cd and 114Cd are expected but have not been observed to be radioactive."
      • The paragraph immediately following the one mentioned above can also be polished. Among the isotopes absent in natural cadmium, the most long-lived are 109Cd with a half-life of 462.6 days, and 115Cd with a half-life of 53.46 hours. All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are less than 2.5 hours, and the majority of these have half-lives that are less than 5 minutes. This element also has 8 known meta states, with the most stable being 113mCd (t½ = 14.1 years), 115mCd (t½ = 44.6 days), and 117mCd (t½ = 3.36 hours). The known isotopes of cadmium range in atomic mass from 94.950 u (95Cd) to 131.946 u (132Cd). For isotopes lighter than 112 u, the primary decay mode is electron capture and the dominant decay product is element 47 (silver). Heavier isotopes decay mostly through beta emission producing element 49 (indium). changes to "30 unstable isotopes exist, the longest-lived being 109Cd with a half-life of 462.6 days; 12 metastable states exist, the longest-lived being 113mCd with a half-life of 14.1 years. Isotopes lighter than 112Cd primarily decay to silver; isotopes heavier than that decay to indium."
      • The last two paragraphs of this section: One isotope of cadmium, 113Cd, absorbs neutrons with very high probability if they have an energy below the cadmium cut-off and transmits them readily otherwise. The cadmium cut-off is about 0.5 eV. Neutrons with energy below the cutoff are deemed slow neutrons, distinguishing them from intermediate and fast neutrons. Cadmium is created via the long S-process in low-medium mass stars (0.6 -> 10 solar masses), lasting thousands of years to do. It requires a silver atom to capture a neutron and then undergo beta decay. becomes "113Cd has the property of effectively absorbing neutrons with an energy below 0.5 eV and transmitting them otherwise. Cadmium is created in the S-process by a silver atom capturing a neutron and undergoing beta decay." The caption can be changed as well.
        I'm fixing these problems and finding a few more errors --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't touch the isotopes part. It's better in the original version. The new one is good to write a conspectus, not an article--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to note — I didn't agree with most (but not all!) of it. Reasons given--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For two of them, natural radioactivity was observed, and three others are predicted to be radioactive but their decay is not observed, due to extremely long half-life times. Doesn't flow.
        To me, it's OK. Suggestions?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Rewrite as "Two of them are radioactive, and three are expected to decay but have not been experimentally confirmed to do so. FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you FREYWA 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two natural radioactive isotopes are 113Cd (beta decay, half-life is 7.7 × 1015 years) and 116Cd (two-neutrino double beta decay, half-life is 2.9 × 1019 years). Could be simplified.
        It's already maximum simple. If I wrote it, it would be more complicated. However, suggestions may be useful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The two expressions in brackets can be modified to "beta decay with a half-life of 7.7 × 1015 years" and "double beta decay with a half-life of 2.9 × 1019 years" respectively. The third word in the sentence should be "naturally". FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you FREYWA 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other three are 106Cd, 108Cd (double electron capture), and 114Cd (double beta decay); only lower limits on their half-life times have been set. Is 106Cd suspected of double EC? Punctuation error (comma before and), last bolded section should be moved to the front.
        It is not a punctuation error. See serial comma for more info, but in general — using the comma is American style, not using — British (maybe the whole Commonwealth). Why should it be moved? All other such sentence use something similar. However, the first one is valid, improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oxford comma --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine! You win! Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Among the isotopes absent in natural cadmium, the most long-lived are 109Cd with a half-life of 462.6 days, and 115Cd with a half-life of 53.46 hours. First bolded area can be simplified, second is a comma-and error.
        In general, if a construction is simple but can be further simplified, it is considered simple. However, reworded. Punctuation — see above.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This element also has 8 known meta states, with the most stable being 113mCd (t½ = 14.1 years), 115mCd (t½ = 44.6 days), and 117mCd (t½ = 3.36 hours). Redundant "also", comma error.
        OK, removed, punctuation — see above.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The known isotopes of cadmium range in atomic mass from 94.950 u (95Cd) to 131.946 u (132Cd). For isotopes lighter than 112 u, the primary decay mode is electron capture and the dominant decay product is element 47 (silver). Heavier isotopes decay mostly through beta emission producing element 49 (indium). We're not using atomic mass here, we're using nucleon number. The 47 in "47 (silver)" is redundant (likewise for 49 (indium)).
        Both are possible. It says lighter, and a mass given. It's OK. Element 47 (silver) may be left — because considering someone who don't know how radioactivity appears, what Z is, and atomic number for say, silver and indium, without the Z they may understand nothing. So I take take cadmium... and it turns silver? Neat! But seriously, having read in the lead cadmium is element 48, they may see so a beta minus decay is a decay to the next element (hmmm... indium?) and beta plus is to the previos (silver, alright!) just don't expect everyone to know as much as you do--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine. Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One isotope of cadmium, 113Cd, absorbs neutrons with very high probability if they have an energy below the cadmium cut-off and transmits them readily otherwise. The cadmium cut-off is about 0.5 eV. Neutrons with energy below the cutoff are deemed slow neutrons, distinguishing them from intermediate and fast neutrons. The first bolded area has the redundant "readily". The second one refers to the fact that the first two sentences can be efficiently merged. The third is that the reader doesn't need to have it to understand the meaning.
        "readily" removed, the latter may be left — just when you touch something new, more info may be useful. However, this is to your choice — if asked once again, I'll remove it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cadmium is created via the long S-process in low-medium mass stars (0.6 -> 10 solar masses), lasting thousands of years to do. The first bolded area is removable. The second can be restated "stars with 0.6 to 10 solar masses". Third one? Bad grammar.
        "long" word is connected to the final part of the sentence, the second one, yes, should be reworded, the third maybe too.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Incidentally, isn't cadmium slightly bluish? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
    • Even though cadmium and its compounds may be toxic in certain forms and concentrations, the British Pharmaceutical Codex from 1907 states that cadmium iodide was used as a medication to treat "enlarged joints, scrofulous glands,[13] and chilblains." The ref should always be put at the end of the sentence.
    • After the industrial scale production of cadmium started in the 1930s and 1940s the major application was the coating of iron and steel to prevent corrosion. In 1944, 62% and in 1956 59% of the cadmium in the United States was used for this purpose. These two sentences can be merged into one. Regarding the percentages, the second one should have a comma behind it like the first.
    • The second application was red, orange and yellow pigments based on sulfides and selenides of cadmium. In 1956, 24% of the cadmium used within the United States was used for this purpose. Again, can be merged.
    • The stabilizing effect of cadmium-containing chemicals (carboxylates such as the laureate and the stearate) on PVC led to a increased use of those compounds in the 1970s and 1980s. The bolded area should be "like the laureate and the stearate".
    • The use of cadmium in applications such as pigments, coatings, stabilizers and alloys declined due to environmental and health regulations in the 1980s and 1990s. In 2006, only 7% of total cadmium consumption was used for plating and coating and only 10% was used for pigments. Can be merged into one sentence.
      Thank you FREYWA 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occurrence
  • Production
    • In 2001, China was the top producer of cadmium with almost one-sixth world share closely followed by South Korea and Japan, reports the British Geological Survey. No connecting expression, wrong word used.
      Done.--Stone (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you FREYWA 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zinc metal is produced either by smelting the oxide with carbon or by electrolysis in sulfuric acid. Cadmium is isolated from the zinc metal by vacuum distillation if the zinc is smelted, or cadmium sulfate is precipitated out of the electrolysis solution. The expressions can and should be combined in a different way from here, based on their intended meanings.
      Thank you FREYWA 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applications
  • Biological role
  • Safety
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadmium/GA1&oldid=433243466"