Wikipedia:Peer review/Zinc/archive1

===Zinc===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is close to a FAC. What is it missing? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Zinc/archive1.


 * A really good copyedit, MOS check and an expanded lede are needed. The last part of the history section, "Isolation of the pure element", needs a refactor since it is almost list-like as-is. And, of course, all the clarify and cite needed tags need to be taken care of and references formatted correctly and uncited stuff cited (check to make sure all references are good ones too). In short, the article is certainly A class but needs a fair amount of clean-up before FAC. --mav (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyedit done for Characteristics, Compounds and chemistry, and History sections. History section reorganized and heavily copyedited. Compounds and chemisty section reorganized a bit and significantly trimmed. Will work some more on the rest of the article later on Sunday. --mav (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Production and Applications sections cleaned-up now. Biological role needs a lot of TLC but Precautions should not be an issue. After that, the lede needs to be expanded, table checked for accuracy and a final MOS/ref check. Getting real close now. --mav (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyedit done for entire article now. --mav (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments
Generally well done, and mav is making it even better. Here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note 1 needs a ref. I would have the refs for the notes in with the refs for the rest of the article. El Greco does this well, if you need an example.
 * I realize this is a work in progress, but there are some fact tags and clarification needed tags in the article.
 * There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded. For example, the two paragraphs on Zn-65 in Other industrial uses could be combined.
 * For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
 * Refs look solid except "Craddock, P.T. et al. (1983). Zinc production in medieval India, World Archaeology, vol. 15, no. 2, Industrial Archaeology." You should italicize et al. More importantly the ref needs an ISSN
 * upright param = neato! I didn't like how much space portrait images take-up in subsections but I also dislike hardcoding widths b/c what works for me may not work for others. So thanks for mentioning the upright parameter. :) I too dislike the way we currently cite the notes. But the template hack and hardcoded note name at El Greco is fragile. I'd prefer to wait for nested referencing for the standard cite/ref function. Other comments will be addressed. --mav (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note 1 moved to talk in hope of getting cite. All fact tags taken care of by adding cites or removing text b/c it was not needed. Same for clarify tags. Single-sentence paras combined. Portrait image format enabled. Craddock coauthors added and ISSN added. --mav (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62
Hey mates, just lending a hand with the Biological role section. Since you guys are more familiar with the sources and the writing, I decided to just leave comments here rather than muck everything up. More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Zinc...is thought to protect plants from drought and disease." It sounds a bit awkward to say that something protects a plant from drought. Isn't the only way to do that to give it water? Or transplant the specimen into a place with moist soil? Perhaps "the effects of drought" or "dehydration" would be more appropriate.
 * Changed to: "...and is thought to help plants resist drought and disease." --mav (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Zinc is absorbed 15 to 40% in the intestines, with higher absorption when zinc status is low" Yikes. 15 to 40% of Zinc that passes through the intestines is absorbed? Or, of the total amount of Zinc that is taken in, 15 to 40% is absorbed in the intestines? Also, what exactly is "zinc status"? I was unaware that our bodies come equipped with HUDs which alert us of such vital pieces of information as "zinc status".
 * Changed to: "The intestines absorb 15 to 40% of the zinc that passes through them, with higher absorption rates when zinc levels are low in the body." --03:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "A similar situation exists with zinc and copper." It's not exactly a situation. Perhaps a "relation" or "interaction" or "competition" ?
 * Changed to: "A similar reaction occur with zinc and copper." --mav (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Plasma zinc concentrations are insensitive indicators of zinc status since a narrow homeostatic range is maintained in the body." Again with the zinc status! In this sentence, "narrow homeostatic range" is given as an explanation of why "plasma zinc concentrations are insensitive indicators", but it's not really clear to me how one explains the other.
 * Changed to: "The concentration of zinc in blood plasma stays relatively constant regardless of zinc intake." --mav (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The most-important types of protein that contain zinc are enzymes and transcription factors" What's with the random hyphen? Also, what determines which proteins are "important"?
 * "Carbonic anhydrase uses zinc to quickly catalyze the waste gas carbon dioxide into bicarbonate and protons in vertebrate blood." This would be a perfect place for a reaction equation!
 * "Carbonic anhydrase uses zinc to quickly catalyze the waste gas carbon dioxide into bicarbonate and protons in vertebrate blood. The non-related β-carbonic anhydrase is..." These sentences seem to be inconsistent with carbonic anhydrase. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik's comments

 * 1) The lead is not adequate, it does not fully summarize the article. It should be expanded to full 4 paragraphs.
 * 2) *Expansion and improvement of the lede needs to wait until the body of the article is complete. --mav (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Zinc is a chalcophile, meaning the element was subjected to the early Earth's reducing atmosphere as the crust solidified. This caused zinc to separate out of the sulfide phase, resulting in sulfide minerals. Can you clarify the meaning. I do not understand connection between the chalcophile nature of Zn and reducing atmosphere of the early Earth. And what does "separate out of the sulfide phase" mean?
 * 4) *Sulfide phase part removed and rest changed to: "Zinc is a chalcophile ("sulfur loving"), meaning the element has a low affinity for oxygen and prefers to bond with sulfur in highly insoluble sulfides. Chalcophiles formed as the crust solidified under the reducing conditions of the early Earth's atmosphere." --mav (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) In the 'Isotopes' subsection. Zinc has 10 metastable (excited) states Such states are called isomers. This should be mentioned. In addition the sentence The isotopes of zinc range in mass number from 54 to 83 should be moved to the beginning of the first paragraph of this subsection.
 * 6) *Changed to: "Zinc has 10 nuclear isomers with the longest-lived being Zn-69m (t½ 13.76 hours). The nuclei of nuclear isomers exist in a delicate equilibrium or metastability due to at least one nucleon having an excited energy state." But the 54 to 83 sentence is the topic sentence of the paragraph that discusses decay trends for all isotopes on either side of zone of stability. It therefore seems to fit for me. Also, the first para is about stable isotopes only and the 54 to 83 topic sentence is a great place to introduce the term 'mass number' due to its heavy use in the rest of that paragraph. --mav (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)  In the 'Reactivity' subsection. The surface of the pure metal tarnishes quickly, eventually forming a passivating layer of the basic zinc carbonate, Zn5(OH)6CO3, by reaction with atmospheric CO2. It is better to call this compound hydrocarbonate. This subsection is somewhat illogical. In the second paragraph it says Zinc reacts readily with acids, alkalis and other non-metals, then proceeds to describe reactions with water, thent returns to reactions with acids. I think the description of water reactions should be placed after the description of reactions with acids.
 * 8) *That section is going to be completely rewritten once compounds of zinc is fleshed out. --mav (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) In the 'Compounds' section. In weak basic solutions containing Zn2+ ions, the hydroxide Zn(OH)2 forms as a white precipitate. In stronger alkaline solutions, this hydroxide is dissolved to form zincates ([Zn(OH)4]2-). These two sentences are unclear. I think it is better to write that "When a zinc salt is added to a weak alkaline solution, the insoluble zinc hydroxide forms as a white precipitate. In the strong alkaline solution the precipitate dissolves forming ([Zn(OH)4]2-) or something like that. In additions ready may not know that alkaline and basic are synonyms. In the same paragraph the sentence One of the simplest examples of an organic compound of zinc is the acetate (Zn(O2CCH3)2) should be moved to the next paragraph.
 * 10) *That section is going to be completely rewritten once compounds of zinc is fleshed out. --mav (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) In the history section it is better to merge the first two subsections ('Impure zinc' and 'Ancient use in alloys') creating the 'Ancient use' subsection.
 * 12) *I agree. Done. --mav (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) In the 'Impure zinc' subsection. The sentence Because of the low boiling point and high chemical reactivity of this metal, the true nature of it may not have been fully understood in ancient times needs a citation. Another sentence The zinc mines of Zawar, near Udaipur in India, were active about 100 years before that[39] and may have produced an estimated million tonnes of metallic zinc and zinc oxide from the 12th to 16th centuries makes a strange statement about production of the metallic zinc from the mine. Did they really mine metallic zinc or produce it from the ore? Zinc was first recognized as a metal in 1374 by the Hindu king Madana Pala. What does this mean? How did he "recognize" it?
 * 14) *The 'true nature' sentence was removed b/c it really isn't needed. The exact passage from the reference used to write the Zawar sentence is: "Waste from a zinc smelter at Zawar, in Rajasthan, testifies to the large scale on which the metal was refined, with one estimate being that more than a million tonnnes of metallic zinc and zinc oxide were produced there from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries." The other ref mentions both the smelter and the mine so start of the wikisentence changed to: "The zinc mines and smelter of Zawar...". The 1374 sentence is cited to Weeks 1933 which in turn cites Ray 1903, who wrote on pages 157-158: "In the medical Lexicon ascribed to king Madanapāla and written about the year 1374 A.D, zinc is, however, distinctly recognised as a metal under the designation of Fasada. That in turn refers to a Hindu text, so no more explanation is going to be easy to find. WikiSentence changed to: "Zinc was distinctly recognized as a metal under the designation of Fasada in the medical Lexicon ascribed to the Hindu king Madanapala and written about the year 1374." -mav (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) In the 'Anti-corrosion and batteries' subsection. Does the sentence Zinc is more reactive than iron or steel and thus will attract almost all local oxidation until it completely corrodes away refer to cathodic protection. If so it should say this explicitly. And what is the physical mechanism behind the protective properties of zinc? (second paragraph of this section). Is it the same cathodic protection?
 * 16) *That property of zinc is what makes batteries work, is a major reason why galvanization works and is, as you note, why cathodic protection works. The mechanism is described by the sentence you copied... To make clear why cathodic production works, I changed that para's topic sentence to: "The relative reactivity of zinc and its ability to attract oxidation to itself also makes it a good sacrificial anode in cathodic protection." A ref note was also added: "Electric current will naturally flow between zinc and steel but larger pipeline systems require a rectifier that adds an induced DC electric current to the CP system." --mav (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) In the 'Alloys' subsection. The low boiling point together with the low viscosity Why the boiling point is so important? Or may be the melting point was meant here?
 * 18) *Melting point is correct. Fixed. --mav (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Regarding the uses of other compounds. ZnS crystals are used as matrices for mid-infrared lasers. Zinc oxide is a semiconductor, which has wide applications.
 * 20) *Cool - thanks for the pointers. Info added to article. --mav (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) The quality of the article generally deteriorates to the end. The last parts of it beginning with history need a serious copy-edit.
 * 22) *Please take another look now. --mav (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from

 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=zinc&searchmode=term
 * Swapped for a ref from Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. --mav (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&C=189&A=565&S=1
 * Removed b/c not needed. --mav (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 54 is lacking a publisher
 * Added. --mav (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 71 needs a publisher
 * Somebody else added it. --mav (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)