Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caesium/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 13:33, 5 October 2010 [1].

Caesium edit

Caesium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC) and Conominator:Stone (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This metal reacts explosively with frozen water, but melts in your hand... Nergaal (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources Quite a few of the reflinks do not have an access date accompanying them. Secondly I see that cite 1 seems incomplete, it says "Jon wiley" in one place. Another thing in the infobox it has stuff as kg.s kg.kJ-1 etc in the main body it has more of teh kg/kJ stuff. Consistency problem? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed accessdates, ref 1, the "Jon" thing, and the consistency. Personally I don't understand the reasoning for putting accessdates for links to books (like books.google.com) or journal articles since at least in theory the content does not change. As for ref 1, sorry about missing that; it is a transcluded reference so I did not catch it. I personally thing g/mol looks much better in the body of the text, while in infoboxes, the elements project has chosen the scientific style just because it can get hard to get some of them otherwise; I chose to just have the latter style in the text. Nergaal (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • It'd be great if the first note could be cited.
  • "with water even at −116 °C" - you need the Fahrenheit conversion (in the lede). Make sure that's done throughout the article.
    • added the convert template to all the instances of Celsius units. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a science article, where SI is the accepted norm, why the need to convert? Why are we pandering to those who can't convert back and forth by themselves? How hard is it, (°F - 32) * 5 / 9 = °C and vice versa. If all temperatures were converted both ways, I guess that would be fair. However, from the articles I come across, the metric to imperial conversion is more common than the other way around. Can anybody spell systemic bias? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention somewhere why the spelling is optional. I'm assuming it's due to US/UK spelling, but it's best not to assume. I see the sentence on the IUPAC, but it doesn't say why.
    • what do you mean by optional? Caesium is technically the correct one, but many people and places use the cesium and I am not sure it is a UK vs US thing, but more of a formal vs informal thing. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the first sentence says "Caesium or Cesium". I think clarification which is the correct one, and why it is correct, would be good. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a note to start getting where I think you are pointing. It is not perfect so if you have a better suggestion please let me know. Nergaal (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its compounds burn with a blue color." - needs a source
  • I'm curious, are the first two sentences in "Chemical properties" cited to the 2nd note, or to the reference that appears after the note? If the latter, you should probably add another ref before the note to be safe. BTW, "it reacts explosively with water (even cold), even more so than" - is pretty awkward grammatically, particularly the two "even"s. I suggest removing the parenthesis and find a way to rewrite it, since (to me at least) parenthesis imply a statement that isn't needed.
    • You are right about the reference and I added it. I've also rephrased the sentence and removed both "even"s. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Physical properties", how come there is no mention of boiling point? There is a ton of fancy-shmancy science tech stuff on the right-hand side, and I expect to see that stuff written out somewhere in the article. I just assumed that most of that would appear in "Physical properties". Another thing, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that each single unit of Cesium (pardon my spelling) has 53 protons and electrons, and X neutrons? You mention "atomic mass" three times, but you never explain it in the simplest of terms.
    • I thought there was nothing outstanding about it, but you are right; I added a sentence. Neutron #s depends on the isotope, but since this has only one I added it to the isotope section. As for atomic mass, I added a note (technically is supposed to be mass number anyways). Nergaal (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yay for the boiling point (can't believe it's the second lowest boiling point - raher interesting). Thanks for adding. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is stored and shipped in dry mineral oil or in other dry saturated hydrocarbons or in an inert atmosphere (such as argon or nitrogen) or vacuum in sealed borosilicate glass ampoules." - try finding a way to rewrite that as not to use "or" too often.
  • "100 grams" - imperial units too, please
  • As with atomic mass, it couldn't hurt to remind the readers what "soluble" is. Even in hurricane articles (which I specialize in), we try and explain the meteorological phenomena in each and every featured article.
    • I couldn't think of a short way to explain solubility but I added a link. If you have an idea please let me know. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linking is the next best thing, although I do think a link to the first use of soluble would be good too Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been regarded as the "strongest base", but in reality, many compounds such as n-butyllithium and sodium amide which are not classic hydroxide bases are stronger, and are hydrolized by water (since in water the strongest base is the hydroxide anion)."
    • Few problems. First, it's unsourced. Second, who regarded it as the "strongest base"? And why the quotes? When you say "in reality"... it just seems amateurish. That's like denying the reality of whomever said that quote.
      • The strongest is a sort of classical (i guess the one thought in high-school) definition. Bases were regarded as those that had the hydroxide in their formula (i.e. NaOH), but when looking at their basicity defined by their acidity constant is less than others. Nergaal (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've altered the sentence and added ref. Is the sentence good now? Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Grammatically the sentence is much better now. I'm still somewhat concerned that it doesn't say who regarded as the strongest base. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tweaked it. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd recommend simply removing the "strongest base" thing: it doesn't really add anything to the discussion and I would reckon it is dubious, even if referenced. Are you really suggesting that saturated CsOH solution (2.6 M) is a sronger base than, say, alcoholic KOH? Physchim62 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Basicity is a constant defined in a solvent. I am sure that using the same solvent (i.e. CsOH in alcohol and KOH in the same alcohol) Cs would still 'win'. Nergaal (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop right there, since that's already a lot, but I don't think it's ready to be considered one of Wikipedia's best articles yet. Good luck working on this more in the future! Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better already. Here is the rest of my review of the article.
  • "Aside from the superoxide and the ozonide CsO3,[20][21] several brightly colored suboxides have also been studied.[22] These include Cs7O, Cs4O, Cs11O3, the dark-green Cs3O, CsO, Cs3O2,[23][24] as well as Cs7O2"
    • So, does that mean that CsO, Cs3O2, and Cs7O2 are all dark-green? Or is Cs3O the only dark one, while the rest are light? I'd reorganize that to make it clearer.
      • The latter. I put the color in a paranthesis. Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter may be heated under high vacuum to generate Cs2O"
    • Maybe it's because I haven't taken Chemistry for six years, but what is "high vacuum"? The article doesn't mention it anywhere else, and it sticks out.
      • It is a technical term referring to atmospheres in the 10^-5 to 10^-6 atm range. I just deleted the "high" since it is not really necessary (reaction goes at lower quality vacuum, albeit slower). Nergaal (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the history section, don't forget to do imperial units.
    • I fixed all the instances I could notice. The only ones I left behind are those about the LD50: how is it expressed in imperial system? Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the LD50 is fine, but that same sentence has kilograms without anything else (and not to be picky but there's an instance of litres without gallons, and I noticed another instance of kg). Please double-check all of the units. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did try to but I missed the kg one. I left the liter there on purpose because the exact value is explained a few lines above. I simply put the value the second time to make sure it is exact, but if you think the second time also needs conversion I will put that too. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had forgotten about this. I'm willing to support it now, with the caveat that I'm not too used to chemistry articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - yay for chemistry. Noticed a few things that could use some attention:

  • In the lead, the page for flame spectroscopy redirects to emission spectrum, which is linked later in the lead, but possibly a direct link to the flame section on the spectroscopy page would be more helpful.
    • I think I fixed what you were referring to. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The radioactive isotope caesium-137, with a half-life of about 30 years, is used in medical applications, industrial gauges, and hydrology." - possibly change to "....has a half-life of approximately 30 years and is used in medical...." Or possibly leave the half life out in the lead.
  • "Although the element has a mild chemical toxicity, it is a hazardous material as a metal and its radioisotopes present a high health risk in case of radiation leaks." This doesn't really make sense - the "although" seems to imply something opposite the following statement, but as it reads now - it is mildly toxic and considered a hazardous material - those things are not in opposition. Possibly "Although the element is only mildly toxic...." or something along those lines.
    • Ah, I got what you were saying. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear to me, but I don't see either a wikilink or an explanation of "alloys". (Under physical properties)
  • Same section "On the other hand..." Not really needed, and actually confusing. First part talks about alloys and temperature, second part talks about intermetallics and photosensitivity.
  • "less than unity" - unnecessary jargon.
    • is "... less than 1." any better? Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its more straightforward to someone unfamiliar with the concept. The page for refractive index makes no clear mention of "unity", but it does mention a refractive index being greater or less than one.
  • "is in line with..." - not all that encyclopedic - "does not contradict" is probably clearer.
  • Under chemical properties - presumably Cs will also react with warm water? Possibly "water (at any temperature)"
    • fixed Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'even with cold water' implies a previous mention about warm water, or any other temperature, of which there was none.
        • any idea how to phrase this to emphasize that it goes explosively even if the water is cold? Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think 'reacts explosively with water at any temperature' gets the point across.
  • Does the "more vigourously" refer to reacting with water, spontaneously igniting, or both?
    • both. vigorous reaction is faster and produces lots of heat, and the two together form more of an explosion. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here the article talks about it being a hazardous material for transport, this could be clarified in the lead.
    • it is hazardous to handle, not necessarily just during the transport phase. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly clarify that this mention of hazardous material status refers only to transport.
        • I am not sure exactly what are you saying. The lead says that it is hazardous material in general (i.e. if you have an ampule of it and accidentally open it in a humid atmosphere you might be very unlucky); the paragraph you are looking at only talks about the transportation issues. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under compounds "double halides" would be much clearer by including an example formula.
    • ok, but which one of them? if I pick one it will look weird not to put the others too, which in turn would be to distracting. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If not, then an in text reference to what a double halide is. Its not intuitive that another metal is present from the phrasing now.
        • I have added an example and tried not to emphasize it. Is it clear now? Nergaal (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under isotopes "...has at least 39 known isotopes..." This somewhat implies that there are more known but the information is unreleased. Is that the intent? If not "...has 39 known isotopes..." is accurate.
    • The reference shows 39 but it might not include recent reports. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You really just have to go with what the reference says, I think. If new isotopes are discovered, the number can be updated with newer references.
        • It is a database of all isotopes. I think that when one element has 39, the 40th one might go unnoticed for some time. It is simply the way we have been phrasine these at WP Elements. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • One might think that a 40th would go unnoticed for some time, but that isn't verifiable. What is verifiable is that the reference says there are 39 known isotopes of caesium.
  • Inconsistency between the lead and the body regarding writing out "caesium-xxx" or using the two letter abbreviation. Is this intentional?
    • There has been a long debate at wp:Elements about this. The idea is that for casual readers it is better to have element-x. But for the isotope section it would be just to awkward to have that notation so we kept the short-hand for isotopes only. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that makes sense to me.
  • "medium lived fission product" is wikilinked twice, the second time in the fourth paragraph, it actually points to "long lived fission product"
    • That was a weird error because the link was correct but not the text. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its half-life makes it the principal medium-lived fission product along 90Sr" should that be "...along with 90Sr"?

OK, I'm at the end of "Isotopes". I'll come back later. There's some work to do, but its a good read. Canada Hky (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • the chemical element with the symbol Cs and atomic number 55. — a chemical element
  • it is THE chemical element that has # 55. there is only one such chemical element. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the point I was making is that although the atomic number defines the element, its symbol doesn't no big deal though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caesium is a very soft — is it worth linking this explicitly to the low m.p.?
  • that would be a poor correlation. Graphite is also very soft but it has the highest melting point. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is known to form well defined intermetallic compounds with antimony, gallium, indium and thorium, which are known to be photosensitive. — clunky and repetitive, It forms well defined intermetallic compounds with antimony, gallium, indium and thorium, which are photosensitive. would be better
  • black-metallic, purple shining — ??
  • the text in the ref is The black metallic. purple shining CsHgz is isotypic to KH2 and RbHg2 Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a poor translation (although the ref was written in English, the author was not a native speaker); I've reworded the sentence to make it sound better. Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, since no information or matter is transferred, does not contradict the — missing it?
  • One of the world's most significant and rich sources of the metal is the Tanco mine at Bernic Lake in Manitoba. ... but more than two-thirds of the world’s reserve base is at Bernic Lake, Canada — Why are the two Bernic lake bits three miles apart?
  • Caesium metal is highly reactive (is one of the most reactive elements) — missing it?
Thank you very much for the pointing out these tweaks. Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article and bears little resemblance to my de-stubbed version of several years ago. Article touches on every aspect an element article should, is well referenced with high quality sources, and is written in a clear and concise yet fact-packed way. Image copyright looks good as well as MOS compliance (both based on my limited understanding of each). Just a couple quibbles: Use of "today" and "over the last half century" in the Applications section need to be more specific. --mav (reviews needed) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've switched the former to currently, and for the latter, I added a citation with when was the first caesium clock built. Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Some issues, possibly:
    • The section on the #1 app, drilling fluids, is at least partly plagiarized from the USGS pamphlet. We might track down the contributing editor and check their other contributions.
    • I question the authority of this pamphlet as well. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry says this about cesium formate "The very low toxicity of the cesium cation ... have led to the suggestion to use these solutions as brines in oil..." This USGS pamphlet is the most highly cited source in the article, its backbone one could say and it may not measure up, in part because it is US-centric. Its main virtue may be that it is accessible to editors.
        • Feel free to improve the article. Nergaal (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not checked carefully, but the initial chem section is somewhat misleading "Isolated caesium is extremely reactive" It is in fact robust, even distillable.
        • If you think caesium metal is not reactive, then feel free to check that with any highschool chemistry book. Nergaal (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The safety section is hytrionic and semi-hysterical "Caesium metal is one of the most reactive elements and is highly explosive when it comes in contact with water. The hydrogen gas produced by the reaction is heated by the thermal energy released at the same time, causing ignition and a violent explosion." I just dont think that the common person is ever, ever going to encounter metallic Cs, so it can be construed as misleading to the common reader to emphasize such esoteric behavior.
        • I don't think that the common person will come in contact with caesium salts either. This article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a handguide about what readers should do when they come in contact with whatever form of the metal they could/might encounter in their average day. Nergaal (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will read up more and report later.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Caesium/archive2&oldid=1086103640"