Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Germanium


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008.

Germanium

 * Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) & Stone & WP Elements

Aside from a few finishing touches, I believe the article is ready to become featured. Many thanks to various users, including Itub, Mav, Edgar181, Axiosaurus, and Jimfbleak. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

question - Would it be possible to get an image other than Image:Lilit.jpg for the section, I would be happier if it didn't have trademark issues. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this one better? Image:Pet Flasche.JPG--Stone (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Fasach Nua (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And me jimfbleak (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support and comments COI - I did the GA for this. It has been substantially improved since GA. However, I share the concern about the Lilt bottle, especially as it can so easily be replaced by a image of a PET bottle with the label removed. jimfbleak (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/elem/ge.html a reliable source? Granted, it's not exactly contentious information..
 * It lists all the references it uses at the bottom of the page. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the guy stopped updating the articles there several years ago, but I have used his articles and wherever I had to double-check his statements in the refs he gives, I did not manage to find errors. About fact-checking: is this ok? Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it's on the fence in my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise http://science.jrank.org/pages/2398/Element-Chemical.html?
 * gone


 * And http://www.mt-berlin.com/frames_cryst/descriptions/scintillators_gen%20.htm?
 * gone


 * Please note the language where websites are in non-English languages.
 * added language tags


 * Current ref 36 (Alpha Fusion Electrical Energy Valve) is lacking a publisher.
 * publisher added


 * Current ref 47 (Brown, Jr. Robert D ...) is lacking a last access date
 * added accessdate


 * Current ref 49 (Understanding Recordable & Rewritable DVD..) is lacking a publisher
 * added publisher


 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes (such as ORTEC, etc.)
 * added full spelling to two abrevs


 * What makes http://kubton.com/fuzz_guide.html reliable?
 * Jo the Fuzz gets expensiv this season .... I can not find a credible ref for that ;-)--Stone (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone withe whole sentence that the pedals got expensive.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * gone


 * Likewise http://www.stopcancer.com/germaniumstor.htm?
 * This ref is used to show that some dumb people take germanium thinking it is a miracle drug. How could anybody find a credible statement for such an idea? Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replaced by a credible source--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 47 doesn't really need an access date IMO because it is an annual report, not a website, and is not subject to change (but it should probably be cited using a different template). I agree with the points about reliability; in general a more established reference can be used instead. I'm a bit dubious in particular about the statement that germanium is the purest element ever obtained, which is attributed to one of these websites. I'd rather see a more detailed reference that compares ultrapure Ge with ultrapure Si side by side so we can really know the difference and the time when the comparison was made. --Itub (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another reason to give access dates is to allow for the use of webarchives in case the link goes dead later. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Has Accessdate now.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick nitpick, please don't strike through others comments at FAC, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'm not sure who struck my comments, but it wasn't me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry!--Stone (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NO worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Almost support. The article is greatly improved since the last time I read it when it was at peer review (disclaimer: I've done a bit of copy-editing and fact-checking on this article myself). I think it is comprehensive and well referenced. The only caveats are the possibly unreliable references discussed above, and the usual minor inconsistencies in reference formatting (author names and such). --Itub (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked and found only one. Point them out an I get them! --Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still a couple that appear to have the "firstname lastname" format: Gordon K. Teal and Masanori Kaji (I'm not sure about the latter, but it doesn't have a comma like all the other names). There are also several entries without an author. While in some cases there is truly no known author, at least "SiGe History" has an author in the page footer if you follow the link, and "Germanium for Electronic Devices" says W.K. (I don't know if those may be the author's initials or mean something else, maybe would have to check the full text). I haven't checked the other "anonymous" sources. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * is this done?
 * Done. --Itub (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments. The second paragraph in the Applications/Optics subsection is strange. The first sentence should be moved to the third paragraph. The last sentence duplicates the first paragraph and should be moved there. As to IR detectors, Ge is used rarely now&mdash;usually in for wavelengthes longer than 20 &mu;m and the Ge's badgap is not so different from that of Si (1.11 eV v. 0.67 eV). I think the article should provide more complete review of Ge IR detectors. You can use this paper. Ruslik (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right! I changed the paragraph. The point is that Germanium is not used as detector, but as optical element. So the reference you provided deals with the detectors not wit infrared optics, but I try to find a better ref.--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * not done?


 * Comment The pictures do not adhere to MOS. See here Taprobanus (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one violates what rule?--Stone (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the guideline that says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other"? The layout looks OK if you have a big window, but not if it is say 800 px of less. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * possibly the ones where information is in the label of the image but not in the text. perhaps move the organogermanim reaction in the uses section? Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For example Image:Renierit.JPG, is left aligned, they should all be right aligned when you begin a new section. Also dont sandwich material between two pics. Taprobanus (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline about right aligning images at the beginning of a section doesn't apply there, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. This is neither the first section nor a "==="-level heading or greater. --Itub (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;It looks good, but unfortunately I have a few issues:
 * Why is it pure chloride GeCl4, rather than pure GeCl4 or germanium tetrachloride (as is used later)?
 * done
 * "first major use were": was or uses?
 * "...was to be the first metallic material discovered to become superconducting..." seems awkward.
 * rephrased--Stone (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "...at red heat." is vague.
 * quote: Oberhalb Rotglut verbrennt es ( above redheat it burns....) Hollemann --Stone (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please either quote it or also give an equivalent temperature. Thanks.
 * all the very old references use this type of vague words...Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be persistent on this, but "red heat" just seems too vague. It's like saying an object is "heavy". There should be some reference that gives a solid temperature. Also, how is the reader to know that this is an old quote? It just looks like a statement of fact. By putting quotes around it and specifying the originator, the authority becomes clear.
 * doneNergaal (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The silicon article mentions that it remains a semiconductor at higher temperatures than germanium. You might discuss that in the Characteristics section and state at what temperature germanium stops being a semiconductor.
 * Does Figure 2.6.4 of this page help? It shows that the intrinsic carrier density of Germanium increases more slowly than Silicon for higher temperatures. But I'm not an expert so I'm unsure if I am reading it correctly.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * not done Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the fact that Germanium is a semiconductor is a notable factor, and the behavior at high temperatures is an issue. It seems to me that this should be covered for comprehensiveness.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox lists the abundance of 74Ge as ~36%. The text says 72Ge is the most common at ~28%. These seem to conflict.
 * This was a conflict!--Stone (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should explain that β+ is a positron and β- is an electron, rather than assuming reader knowledge.
 * done
 * "...none is mined because of its germanium content" is ambiguous. (it can be interpreted as hazardous, &c.)
 * done
 * Please address the red links.
 * done
 * Except for germanates.
 * According to SandyGeorgia, delegate of the FA director, "there's nothing wrong with redlinks and their removal is not required for FA status, unless the link is to a topic that is unlikely to attain notability". That said, I'd rather just remove the link until someone decides to create the germanate article. --Itub (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So be it then; leave it as an eye-sore. ;-)&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * There are several single-sentence paragraphs. Can these be expanded or merged?
 * it should be ok now Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Enhanced levels of Germanium are generated by the s-process in asymptotic giant branch stars, and this shows up in planetary nebulae.
 * done added short para--Stone (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Germanium is being used in the search for dark matter.
 * the text already states that "Crystals of high purity germanium are used in detectors for gamma spectroscopy and the search for dark matter." Should this be expanded? Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Germanium sesquioxide is a herbal remedy and has medical uses.
 * It's not herbal and if it is a remedy is questioned by a lot of articles. The peer reviewed journal mention it in the context of renal failure after excessive Germanium uptake and it is a minor use for germanium.--Stone (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it seemed to receive scholarly attention in terms of its anti-tumor qualities. (bis (2-carboxyethylgermanium) sesquioxide: CEGS.) Yes it appears to be hazardous, but it was used in the 1970s as a dietary supplement. It might be worth a mention even in a negative context.
 * Isn't it mentioned in the last section? Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * fine, I added a note. Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not a big issue for me. I just thought it would be good for comprehensiveness.&mdash;RJH (talk)


 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional support - Pretty good per WIAFA, but RJH has some valid points. My support is conditional to RJH being satisfied. COI - I destubbed this article in 2002 and paid a bounty on this article to get it to GA. --mav (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the WP:FAC instructions and remove the graphics. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done; OK, I did it myself. Will the nominator please do the cleanup on the FAC to help keep it readable?  It is unclear who added the "not done" comments, as they are unsigned, and for me to step back through the diffs on every FAC is very time consuming. Please sign your entries, and avoid graphics.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why those were added; they didn't seem to help. Perhaps a bot could be written that will perform the graphics cleanup automatically? (At least for frequently-use graphics templates.)&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * The article does not look very aesthetically pleasing. There is major text squeeze in the history section, which IIRC is frowned upon.
 * not sure how to solve this Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps move or remove one of those images? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk )


 * The lede seems a tad short at a quick glance - do you feel it appropriately summarizes the article?
 * pretty much yes-and the other element articles do a similar job. do you have something specific in mind though? Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was only checking if the lede covered everything. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk )
 * The first note (note A) needs a source.
 * done Nergaal (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For accessibility purposes, the temperature units in the article (which are in Celsius) should have a corresponding value in Fahrenheit (in parenthesis). Make sure other units (weight, length, volume, when applicable) are in both metric and imperial.
 * Any need for the redlink germanates in the chemistry section? Is there another link it can go to? It's not a big deal, though.
 * ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -Excellent work. My only surprise, Mav's not here? ;) &mdash; Ceranthor (formerly LordSunday)  ·  (Testify!)  17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I paid a bounty to get this article improved while I was working on getting yttrium up to FA standards. :) --mav (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes; layout issues abound, and they are too non-standard for me to sort. Please go to the WP:ACCESS talk page and inquire if this layout is accessible and post the response back here.  Also, resolve the non-reliable source: I am not a chemist, but a (map) historian much interested in the origin of names clearly does not meet WP:SPS.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean by layout issues, but I did post a request there. Nergaal (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They'll know; I just need to know if a screen reader can process the way those images are laid out. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the reference. Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the last one in the footnotes 73 but we might substitute it by, when I have access to it.--Stone (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support on the prose. But why is "irritate" linked (to a DAB page, too)? "Nonetheless, none". Comma between "synthesized ranging".  In generally, it's a little short on commas. Then again, I see commas that are unnecessary interruptions to the flow: "in the atmosphere of Jupiter,[39] and in some of the most distant stars." 1.66 ppm doesn't sound abundant.  Tony   (talk)  04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dablink fixed. Giggy (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * rephrased the ppm part Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The one thing that strikes me as odd are the "see also" links in the Characteristics section, which goes to the "Germanium compounds" category page, and the "see also" link going to the "Germanium minerals" category. Is there some Chemistry WikiProject style guideline for elements articles?  Is linking to categories this way a standard thing for such articles?  Otherwise, perhaps there should be articles to link to (stub articles okay), rather than categories.
 * Otherwise, the article looks good to me and is understandable to the layreader. I'm not a chemistry expert, so can't say whether or not the article is comprehensive, or if it's citing the best sources for this topic. --Aude (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (conditional) but, you will have to fix these first - 1. The image with caption "Dmitri Mendeleev" is flush against a table. I would move the one image up and the other image down. I don't like images flush against tables because of potential formatting problems. 2. "Rinierite" and a table are under "Production". They sandwich in a subsection. This can be fixed many ways. One, remove the picture. Two, merge all of the sections under the heading "Production" since they have small paragraphs, and then move the table down so it no longer sandwiches text. 3. Remove the "see also" subheading and integrate it into the text somewhere if it is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Got rid of the "See also". Someone added it recently and I thought it was unnecessary, but then I forgot to remove it. As for the images, I'll leave that for someone with the necessary patience to play with it. Quite frankly, I think it is an insoluble problem--what looks perfect in my browser may look hideous in yours and vice versa. --Itub (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave you a sample version of image changes. With it, the Rinierite will need to be given a sentence in the text, otherwise, there is no in text reason for the image, which could confuse people. I hope this helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.