Talk:Ytterbium/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and drop questions below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Due to its closed-shell electron configuration, some of its properties, such as its density and melting and boiling points, show differences from those of the other lanthanides. - bit clunky, why not simply, "Due to its closed-shell electron configuration, its density and melting and boiling points differ from those of the other lanthanides." ?

Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell from reading - do the allotropes all look the same? If so can it be stated, if not then can the differences be clarified?

Hmmm, quite a bit of digging has failed to turn up any information.... I'll keep looking, but I may not be able to do this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for metallic elements the allotropes look essentially the same by eye since they all have a metallic framework/packing/bonding. Only non-metals which form molecular networks exhibit visual differences. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I know that tin is an exception to this rule in that gray tin looks different from the other common allotrope.^[1] I think some more digging is necessary to find out if this holds true for ytterbium as well.

Unfortunately, even after more digging online, I have failed to uncover any information. Since I currently do not have access to a library, does anyone have the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics that is used to reference most parts of the allotropes paragraph? If so, does it say anything about the appearance? If not, I don't think we will ever be able to get this; even a google image search only turned up images of the crystal structure of the allotropes, not the allotropes themselves. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - you gave it your best shot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tin is an exception because gray tin has covalent bonds (it has the diamond cubic structure), not metallic bonds. Double sharp (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~at any temperatures above 1.0 kelvin.~~ ~~- is "any necessary?~~

Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, in modern quantum optics, the different isotopes of ytterbium follow either Bose-Einstein statistics or Fermi-Dirac statistics,[9][10] leading to significant behavior in optical lattices. - can this be expanded in any way to explain it to a layperson?

I've removed the whole sentence. Since all isotopes follow either statistic, this point can really apply to any element. Consider this

Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ytterbium as dopant of active media section is a bit disjointed. I found myself wondering about the overlap between paras 1 and 2. It is also not clear to me why it is used (as a dopant) and what it does that is useful.

Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~...in an inert atmosphere...~~ ~~- like what?~~

Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Metallic ytterbium dust poses a fire and explosion hazard.~~ ~~- any elaborative material? Left me curious....~~

Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better - still leaves me wondering...does it combust spontaneously or...how does metal ignite anyway....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to spontaneously combust when powdered. I have added this to the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad overall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest of these soon, but I'm really busy right now. Could you give me until at least the solstice to finish this? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem. The aim is to get a good article and I think a proper work up rather than a speedy one is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is most often recovered commercially from monazite sand (0.03% ytterbium).
The most important current (2008) sources of ytterbium are the ionic adsorption clays of southern China.

This is a little contradictive--Stone (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Done; the second statement was unsourced. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add parameters to FN 20.

If you're going for FAC at some point, conforming the refs might be good - eg. I see two formats used for retrieval dates (2012-12-23 and 23 December 2012) - just choose one and align all others.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

the ref formatting is minor and no barrier to GA. nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gray, Theodore (2009). The Elements: A Visual Exploration of Every Known Atom in the Universe. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57912-814-2.

[1] Gray, Theodore (2009). The Elements: A Visual Exploration of Every Known Atom in the Universe. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57912-814-2.

[1]