Talk:Praseodymium/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Parcly Taxel (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to the National University of Singapore in August this year to study mathematics. I never lost my love for this project – indeed I'm amazed at how many articles have been lifted to GA status in the recent months, completing the "transperiodic highway" I once bragged about. Once in university I'll have access to the central library where (hopefully) I can find references for my own FA pushes. In the meantime, though, time to review this. [[User:Parcly Taxel|Parcly ]] [[User talk:Parcly Taxel|Taxel ]] 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Problems (I corrected them as I moved along)
 * Praseodymium only has one stable isotope, 141Pr, which makes up all of natural praseodymium: hence praseodymium is a mononuclidic element and its relative atomic mass is a constant of nature that can be determined with great precision. This isotope has 82 neutrons and is hence magic, conferring on it additional stability. "great precision" sounds like an exaggeration, and furthermore relative atomic masses do vary between samples. Repetition of praseodymium too in the first sentence.
 * "Great precision" is to mean: precision only dependent on measurement precision, especially not on sample selection, because all samples have the same nuclide. It's the multi-nuclidic elements that have varieties between samples, as an extra cause of imprecision. Language could be improved indeed (but not by me). -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Praseodymium dissolves readily in dilute sulfuric acid to form solutions containing the chartreuse Pr3+ ions, which exist as a [Pr(H2O)9]3+ complexes: whoops.
 * High but uncertain coordination numbers and poorly defined stereochemistry is the rule… Rather iffy.
 * The first reference in the history section could be was made more reliable.
 * Praseodymium's classification as a rare earth metal rather comes from the fact that it is rarer than "common earths" such as lime and magnesia, and that only a few minerals for which praseodymium extraction is commercially viable are known. The process of extraction is also rather long and arduous. Lots of words here and two related sentences, can be trimmed.
 * The Gibbs free energy of formation for the formation of the Ln(edta·H) complexes increase along the lanthanides by about one quarter from Ce3+ to Lu3+, so that the Ln3+ cations descend the development column in a band and are fractionated repeatedly, so that they are eluted from the heaviest to the lightest. More confused words.
 * …but the main side effects from inhalation of rare earth oxides in humans come not from the rare earths themselves but from the radioactive thorium and uranium impurities, as the rare earths tend to occur together with these elements. Ditto.