Talk:Scandium/GA1

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

I'll review this article. For starters, the introduction is weak and shorter than other element articles. (Admittedly, there may be less to say.) These two sentences contradict each other and are ambiguous: "Due to the low availability and the difficulties in the preparation of metallic scandium, it took a long time before the first major application for scandium was developed. The positive effects of scandium on aluminium alloys were discovered in the 1970s, and its use in such alloys remains the only major application of scandium." "It took a long time" should be clarified with specific chronology, as perhaps is done later in the article. "First major application(s)" and "only major application" contradict each other. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed the sentence and made clear that it took from 1937 until the 1970s.--Stone (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"The use for aluminium alloys started after a patent was granted in 1971 in the United States, at the same time the Soviet Union also expanded the research on aluminium scandium alloys." This reads as a comma splice. I'm not sure how to express what you intend. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Made two sentences.--Stone (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"...this metal is not attacked by a 1:1 mixture of nitric acid (HNO3) and hydrofluoric acid, HF." "is not attacked" is imprecise language to a chemist. "does not react" would be better, if that's what you intend. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed according to the suggestion.--Stone (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"The production of the odd-numbered elements in this range result from much less common thermonuclear reactions, as is explained elsewhere." Where is this explained? I cannot find it in this article, nor is it linked to another article such as nucleosynthesis, nor is it referenced to an external source. Please clarify. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added the reference and will delete the as is explained elsewhere.--Stone (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stone: Thank you. I have finished reading the article and checking the formatting of references. Additional comments:

The original use of scandium-aluminium alloys was in the nose cones of some USSR submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The strength of the resulting nose cone was enough to enable it to pierce the ice-cap without damage, and so enable a missile launch while still submerged under the Arctic ice cap.

Do you expect to find a citation for this? If not, do you think it's true regardless? I am willing to pass a GA with a single "citation needed" tag, but I need to ask about it.


 * This story shows up nearly everywhere, but only on web sites which give no source for the fact and the reliable sources simply do not mentione the fact. The story sounds so good that most of the people trying to sell AL-Sc alloys quote it, but the if it it is true or not I have no clue and no reference for it.--Stone (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Other uses" section break seems unnecessary. I suggest removing it.


 * The "Other uses" section break is gone.--Stone (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything else seems in order. After you (or anyone else) will answer my questions about the missing citation and the hidden text (see below), I intend to pass the article as a GA. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I erase the hidden text. It is the previous version of the section which was not what I was finding in the sources and in a format I was not 100% satisfied with.--Stone (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, one more question. What can you tell me about Stein (journal)? I put in that article what I could find, but please expand it if you can. Thanks. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I only found it as the best source for the minerals section. The only thing I know, is what is already in the article.--Stone (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Passed
Thanks for all the answers. I am satisfied, and am passing the article as a GA.

I am not sure whether an unreliable source for the "citation needed" may be better than no source at all. I leave that to your judgment. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! I will try to get the vanadium and tantalum GAN soon.--Stone (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)