Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Group 3 elements/archive1

Group 3 elements
Group 3 is the first group of transition metals in the periodic table. All the group 3 elements are soft, silvery-white metals, although their hardness increases with atomic number. Each occurs naturally, except for Lawrencium, which is strongly radioactive.


 * Contributor(s): User:Double sharp, User:Stone, User:Mav, User:R8R, and others

Disclaimer, I have done no work on these articles. Am just a lurker who realized that this set fits the criteria of GT. --— PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 04:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Seems like a coherent topic to me! Love to see comprehensive chemistry coverage! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have noted the placement controversy; I didn't because I happen to be on the Lu–Lr side of the dispute, but, regardless, this list is indeed the conclusion that IUPAC have, at length, reached. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The reason I didn't nominate this before is described in Group 3 element: there has been a long dispute in the literature as to which elements belong to this group. Most authors writing textbooks have it with Sc, Y, La, and Ac; most studying the actual placement dispute favour Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr (though there are some exceptions on each side); and because of this squabbling the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry started showing a compromise form in 1990 leaving the spaces below Y blank (hence making it unclear if the group stops there or if all 30 lanthanoids and actinoids are intended to fit in that gap somehow). This didn't really stop chemists from arguing about it, so they started a project intended to actually choose in 2015, and in 2021 it released a provisional report supporting the format with Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr. So this with only four element articles is a reasonable topic, though as of quite recently – IUPAC has not actually updated its webpage when it comes to this. :(
 * Maybe Lanthanum (GA) and Actinium (GA) should be added to this topic to represent the older view because the IUPAC report is such a recent thing. One might even go further and suggest the need for Lanthanide and Actinide, but different IUPAC publications differ on whether those other elements were actually included (in this they are, in this they are not), and it was not given as an option by the recent project. So that can save us since Lanthanide is not a GA. :-D Double sharp (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't know about that muddled history :). In my opinion, we should update the template to what reflects current consensus, so if a new IUPAC report supersedes, the GT should be updated, but it's fine for now. Do you know if the IUPAC report is generally agreed upon by scientists? — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but then again it's pretty recent (having come out last year). In general, even before the report came out, scientists focusing on the dispute tended to conclude that the -Lu-Lr form is better, but those writing general texts tended to continue showing -La-Ac. Last I checked there were still arguments in the literature for both sides. Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to fit the good topic criteria. 141Pr 20:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as it seems to be comprehensive and pass the criteria. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Promotion completed successfully. Don't forget to add to the appropriate section of Good topics. NovemBot (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)