Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of aluminium/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 [1].

---

History of aluminium

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is small yet hopefully interesting spin-off from its mother article, aluminium. I've made my best to make it a decent read so I hope you'll find it good, too!--R8R (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

To what extent do "history of ..." articles normally define the thing they're historicising? We seem to jump in at the start without (for a grade-school reader, for example) giving a short, orienting definition ... perhaps shorter than in the Aluminium article, but something more like it—at least that it's an element, with abbrev. Al, and now a major blah blah. What you think?

I wasn't thinking at all about context since this article was started as a spin-off from aluminium, but now that you've brought that up, I'll try to add up a para to lead during this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe we need "greatly", maybe not. "whose work" is more than just the "discovery", is it?

  I'd say we do need that "greatly", Woehler did really lots of early work and that partially was why everyone was so keen to keep him as the discoverer in the 19th century. "Whose work" is indeed just discovery; but what do I do?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  To greatly extend. It's not smoothly idiomatic. What is wrong with "whose work was extended"? Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Well, since you insist, I'll rely on your judgment. It's not like I can make a good case for "greatly extended," anyway.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Pure aluminium metal was difficult to refine and thus rare."—"rare" we'd normally ascribe to the raw material, wouldn't we? But here it's causally connected with the refined product.

  Good point. Changed to "uncommon."

• Probably comma after "process". Jointly developed, or independently? The second "developed" might be possible as "devised" ... unsure.

  It seems to me we'd do fine without that comma though if you disagree, I'll modestly recognize your authority over myself on that. Independently; added that. I don't see the need to differentiate these two, so since you're unsure, I'm, too, inclined to keep it as it currently is.

• Remove "day".

  Okay.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• These methods ... these methods.

  I've changed the former to "these processes."

• Is it a because since or a ever-since since?

  In this particular sentence, it's an ever-since since, but both would be correct, actually. Why?

  Because your text should avoid double meanings, even if both are correct. It's unclear to the readers. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've reworded the sentence to avoid that "since."--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• 57.5 million?

  I'd rather not. I want this long number from 2015 (57,500,000) to serve as an antipode to the short number from 1900 (6,800), so that the difference strikes the reader.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• "... and as astringents for dressing wounds; alum was also used in medicine, ...". Is dressing wounds medical?

  You're right.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• "a fire-resistant coating for wood (which protected fortresses from enemy arson attempts),"—simpler as "a fire-resistant coating for wood to protect fortresses from enemy arson,"

  Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium metal was unknown to them." Remove last two words as contextually redundant?

  Well spotted.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• in order to. Please: to.

  But it does say, "in order to"?

  What do you mean? Remove the two redundant words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Some sources suggest a possibility that this metal was aluminium;[b] this claim has been disputed.[5]"—"Some sources suggest that this metal was aluminium[b], a claim that has been disputed.[5]"

  I'll blindly follow but could you explain to me (this is a genuine question) why this is an improvement as it requires more words?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Grammar is smoother and simpler, and it's about the same number of words. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It is possible that the Chinese were able to produce aluminium-containing alloys" -> "It is possible that the Chinese produced aluminium-containing alloys" ... glad I zapped that first "possibility".

  Agree.--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs a good audit throughout for grammatical and contextual redundancy (see my tutorials). Repetition-sensitive repetitions. Perhaps logic, but a lesser problem. Tony (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) PS You're a native-speaker of Russian? Then your English is mighty good. Tony (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to find someone whose English would be better than mine to get this done.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment!--R8R (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Would be good for the nominator to hang around in the days after launching it. Tony (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: John and I have made some improvements; please would you take a look? I've mostly been busy lately so the changes didn't occur as fast as they should have but nonetheless, here we are. Most of the changes have been made by myself, so someone definitely needs to check the result, but I still think the text flow actually has gotten better. If you say it is good enough now, great! If you tell me otherwise, I will invest more time into getting some help with prose quality.--R8R (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• "who had the discoverer killed so that the metal would not diminish the value of"—kill one word. And please put that word in the finder box and check that all 56 of them are necessary (in the subsequent sentence, you've got two of them closetogether ... so ... "Some sources suggest that this metal could be aluminium,[b] but this has been disputed."). Get John to check your diff of excisions. Unfortunately there are a lot of "demonstrated that" and "determined that", which is hard to get around. It's not easy to get the hang of this, but try to remove a third of them. Always check for ambiguity if removing.

  I've tried my best and I'm waiting for John's response.--R8R (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's not usual to use "source(s)" so often, explicitly. Usually making a proposition at the right certainty level and inserting a ref tag is enough. Perhaps once or twice explicitly mention "source(s)", but ... ration it.

  I agree we should avoid mentioning sources explicitly but I genuinely don't understand, do we do that once?--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Beginning"—why not simpler: "start"? It's English. Simple and plain are elegant.

  Why not.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "another half a century"—remove one word.

  Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1728, French chemist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire claimed"—is the clause really long enough to require a comma there?

  I can't claim I know the right way but I've seen lots of texts in English and the comma appears natural to me. I suspect it may be a BrE vs. AmE thing as I have seen British texts omit this comma more often and I try to write in AmE so that makes another reason for me to want this comma to stay.

  Also, here's what I found online: "Use a comma after phrases or clauses of more than three words that begin a sentence (unless it is the subject of the sentence). If the phrase has fewer than three words, the comma is optional." This does allow for the comma as well.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Clunky: "and attempted to reduce it to its metal with no success". Can you relocate and change the grammar of "success"?

  I feel like this is a test that I'm about to fail :( I wrote "attempted to reduce it to its metal, but with no success"; I hope this is any better.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Awkward: "His methods were not reported but he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time." Smoother to reverse? "he claimed he had tried every method of reduction known at the time, though his methods were not documented/published ... do not survive"? Reported is a bit vague ...

  Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "a metal which" -> that, where there's no comma before. Or avoid that urchin: "a metal with an affinity ..."/

  I used the latter.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures; they found small metallic particles, which they believed to be the sought-after metal, but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash." Better:

  "In 1790, Austrian chemists Anton Leopold Ruprecht and Matteo Tondi repeated Baron's experiments, significantly increasing the temperatures. They found small metallic particles they believed were the sought-after metal; but later experiments by other chemists showed these were iron phosphide from impurities in charcoal and bone ash."

• "He then tried to heat alumina with potassium; potassium oxide was formed, but he was unable to find the sought-after metal." He tried to heat or he did heat? The stove wouldn't work? "He then heated alumina with potassium, forming potassium oxide, but was unable to find the sought-after metal." Sometimes "produce" could be used instead of your "find". The next, similar sentence needs similar editing.

  Good comment re "tried to heat." Changed the wordings in those two sentences.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• There's a one-sentence paragraph.

  I'm not particularly hot about it, either, but I don't see what can be done about it. The article goes chronologically, and this one-sentence experiment falls between the series of Davy's experiments (which are numerous and make a paragraph of its own) and Oersted's discovery (which also makes a paragraph of its own).--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• he he he. "Berzelius attempted to isolate the metal in 1825; he carefully washed by carefully washing the potassium analog of the base salt in cryolite in a crucible. Prior to the experiment he had correctly identified the formula of this salt prior to the experiment as K3AlF6. He found no metal, but his ..."

  Good one, thank you.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• More he he: "He continued his research and in 1845, he was able ..." -> "He continued his research, and in 1845 was able ..."

  Done.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm tired. Tony (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Chiswick Chap

I reviewed this at GAN and have accordingly little to add, beyond the fact that I think it a fine article.

• Footnote C should mention that the Al-Cu alloys are alluded to in Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (Vol. 5, issue 2, p. 193), wikilinking Joseph Needham.

  I don't like the idea of including a cite for the sake of including a cite; the rest of the text does not explicitly mention any specific sources and I'd like to keep it that way. I would, however, gladly use the book as a reference to back some fact from it, but what could I back? Here's the book itself.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about "for the sake of". The footnote uses another ref already. Needham's opinion is highly relevant as both a sinologist and a chemist, and probably the most respected of all sources on such matters. If that isn't sufficient for you, then consider that the question of what alloys and chemistry the Chinese actually had is a matter for scholarly debate; and that editors must not rely on their personal knowledge or opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

My question as of now, is the following: which exact claim could we support with this book? I am absolutely not opposed to the idea of backing some statement with this book, just to make that clear. My point is that as of right now, the statements that we make are a little more bold than those contained in the book: for instance, the book claims that aluminium alloys could have been made in "medieval" China, whereas the article claims this could have been the case even earlier, in China of the first Jin dynasty (265--420). I don't see the reason to call the existing source unworthy and thus the stronger claim not supported, but maybe you do? Then the note briefly describes how that idea is possible and I'd be glad to reference the book on that but unfortunately, it doesn't describe how that could be possible. It doesn't seem that there is something in the book that we don't have yet in the article but that we could add to reference the book on that (please feel free to prove me wrong here; maybe I did miss something?)

I have prepared a citation in advance in case we do find a claim to back with the book: Needham, Joseph (1974). Science and Civilisation in China. Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 2: Spagyrical Discovery and Invention: Magisteries of Gold and Immortality. Cambridge University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-521-08571-7.--R8R (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing like that at all. All that needs to be said is that Needham took an interest in the matter and suggested the Al-Cu alloys as the explanation. Needham is himself a major figure and his historically stated opinion is itself of interest. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Finally I came up with something that adds to the content we already have. Please take a look.--R8R (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. 21:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I somewhat concur with Tony that a brief bit of context on the metal would be useful.

  Just as I told Tony, I'll try to get a para on that this weekend--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC) or maybe even tomorrow if I'm lucky.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  John has added a paragraph and I've touched it as well; please see what came out.

  Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, "The nature of alum remained unknown." is rather a bald lead in to 'Establishing the nature of alum'. Perhaps add something like 'until the nineteenth century'.

  Well, the story follows the chronological order and I kind of hoped that would be apparent to a reader. "Until the 19th century" wouldn't be correct; I've mentioned the chronologically consistent time mark of the beginning of the Renaissance. I think this should be fine as the next sentence already tells us about how this nature of alum was slowly revealed by later scientists.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I still think we should have a few words about the time period intended in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I tried to start the section with "Around 1500"; does it do the trick or am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Much better, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, too, the lead sentence in 'Rare metal' says simply "the metal remained rare; its cost exceeded that of gold." Again, some description of the period of time (i.e. not just a single date, but a range) during which this remained true would be helpful. I know it's defined in more detail below, but the lead sentence needs to give at least a valid clue to the content. Something like 'for much of the nineteenth century' would do, or you might prefer to name some dates.

  I see what you're pointing at but I can only tell this: a kilogram of gold cost about $665 in 1852 [2] while a kilogram of aluminum cost $1,200 that year [3] (I doubt either is a Wiki-reliable source, by the way). So to be fair to the reader, we can tell him that this was true before Deville's method was implemented (which is correct), and then in the next sentence, we say this method was announced in 1854. How does that sound?--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)#

  It sounds just the sort of thing needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest we should add the discovery date to the caption under the image of Wöhler, though given the earlier date of Ørsted's claim, we should either have an image of Ørsted with his date, or a mention of Ørsted's possibly-prior claim in the Wöhler caption. Personally I'd think an image of Ørsted would be more appropriate: the section is easily long enough for a second image.

  I agree; done.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Recycling is said to be "extensive" but no figures for recycling tonnage or percentage (of total Al scrap, or compared to new Al production: both might be helpful) are given. We might go further and use a recent image of Aluminium recycling (e.g. File:DillingenAluminiumSchrott.jpg), or indeed create a subsection for 'Recycling'. Currently recycling is covered in parts of both paragraphs of 'Mass usage', which is not ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  This is a very worthy comment. I'll try to look into this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I've expanded on the history of aluminium recycling in both sections relating to the 20th century. As for figures of secondary aluminum vs. primary aluminum, as far as I know, figures for secondary aluminium are only available for the United States (from 1913) and China (from 1950) rather than the whole world. I've referenced the United States data once; I don't want to reference more, though, so that the article does not appear too U.S.-centric.--R8R (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  Msny thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  I've briefly included your picture of aluminum scrap instead of the can picture (there is not enough room to just add a picture without removing one) but then I looked at the article and it didn't seem right that we had two scrap-related pictures in a row. After replacing the can picture with the scrap picture, I expanded a little on recycling in the 1970s and beyond and it turned out that cans were actually important for recycling, so I hope that the re-added can picture still sort of counts in a way as scrap-related :) --R8R (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tovarna_glinice_in_aluminija_Kidričevo_-_kupi_aluminija_1968.jpg: when/where was this first published?

  From what I get from the file description, the picture was published in Yugoslav/Slovene newspaper Večer on March 21, 1968.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:Hans_Christian_Ørsted_daguerreotype.jpg needs a US PD tag

  Done.--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:50_Pfennig_1920.jpg: what is the copyright status of the coin itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  I genuinely don't get this one. This is not a work of art which you may be not allowed to make copies of; it is a coin, that is, money. How can it have a copyright status?--R8R (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  It is a coin, but it's not just a blank piece of metal - it has a design that is potentially copyrightable. See commons:Commons:Currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  I see; thank you for the link, the read was very enlightening. Germany's coins are not usually copyright-free; however, I suspect this is the case with our picture as the coin's emission ended in 1922. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany tells us that the copyright term in Germany is the author's lifespan + 70 years; but I cannot figure what rules do you apply when there is no particular author to attribute the design to?--R8R (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  If there is no identified engraver for this particular coin, then it would be either PD-EU-no author disclosure or Template:PD-GermanGov - I'm not sure whether coins fall under the latter. And then with a 1920 date the pre-1923 tag would cover the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, thank you for your help! I've updated the licenses.--R8R (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Commons has commons:Template:PD-GermanGov-currency and this discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thank you for these links! I've changed the license. Does it mean that the information given in commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany is outdated and requires an update?--R8R (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  Probably yes but I'd ask on Commons rather than here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp

I'll review this soon... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is that the first paragraph of the lede seems to be more about aluminium itself than about its history. While some understanding of what aluminium is and the scale of its production is of course necessary to comprehend its history, I think it would be better if we made the links of these properties to aluminium's history explicit rather than just seguing into it in the second paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead section was added during this very FAC after two editors had suggested giving some general context and the beginning of the lead section was the most logical place to add the context to. I have no strong opinion on whether we should have this paragraph at all; perhaps leaning against it if anything, but since other editors disagree, I'll comply to them as I have no strong objections. I absolutely agree that it is better to link properties to various moments of history to explain why this and that even happened for this element and I tried to do so throughout the text; this is perhaps most easily seen in the sections on the 20th century as more properties became important and led to mass usage of the metal.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the link is shown throughout the text, but I think it would be better to make it a bit clearer in the lede, even if it's just to mention that there was a link without explaining it yet. This is of course a small matter indeed and the rest of the article looks fine so far; I'll try to give it a good read through ASAP... Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, that's a good idea. I wanted to come up with something simple to take away; please see how I did.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: That does look a lot better! I'm really sorry for taking this long to get back to it; I was rather busy in October and wanted to wait till I could read the whole thing at once. I've given the main body of the article a full read now; it is very comprehensive, although I think that it sometimes feels too much like a timeline written in prose with all the sentences beginning "In [some year]". Maybe a bit of variation would improve this? As it stands of course we have already improved on a bare timeline by reordering some things to better fit the logical trains of thought. This is just a minor suggestion, so I'll give my support first. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about me waiting for you; I'm glad you found the time to read the article. Thank you very much for your support!

In many ways, history of aluminium is indeed a timeline, because it was essentially "a chemist did this" and "another chemist did that" and those happened at certain moments; we can only discuss continuous processes from the moment aluminum was first produced industrially and realistically only from the launch of the Hall-Heroult process in 1886, after which the text indeed changes from its timeline-like structure. So it does seem useful to keep a uniform style of showing when similar singular events happened. However, if I'm missing something and you do see a way how the text could be improved that I don't, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Векочел

It looks like a good coverage of the history of aluminium. Векочел (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

UtopianPoyzin - Support

Albeit, I do not have all that much experience reviewing featured article candidates on Wikipedia, I have done many similar reviews in the past, so I'll do my best to give my take on the candidate. I have read through the criteria for FAC, and now all I need to do is analyze what's there at History of aluminium.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now read through the article. For starters, you did take out most of the kinks in the article, for I do agree with most of the previous reviews and the changes they suggested. However, there are a few problems that still jump out to me after a basic read-through. I will add more to this list when I thoroughly go back through here. One read isn't enough for a review, but here are the things that I would constantly notice even if I were to read the article again.

@R8R: Sorry for not checking back in for a couple days. I'll now review your changes.

• "Aluminium compound alum has been known since the 5th century BCE and was extensively used by ancients for dyeing and city defense; the former usage grew more important in medieval Europe." "Extensively used"? I personally would prefer if the wordage was "Used extensively". As far as I can research, the popular option for adverbs describing "used" is to place the adverb after, but I'm no grammatical expert myself. I could be wrong. And also, could you elaborate on "grew more important"? How did it?

  As for "used extensively": both seem fine to me. I checked online and according to a dictionary, "extensively used" is fine and used in the actual language (they provide this example sentence: "This instrument was for some years extensively used in the United States, until superseded by G.").

  As for "grew more important": thanks for noticing this, I'll elaborate on this soon.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I tried a different sentence; what do you think of it?--R8R (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yup, the issues were cleaned up here. I don't have problems with the rewording. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium was difficult to refine and thus uncommon." I believe I know what you mean, but it would be helpful to elaborate on what "uncommon" really means in this context.

  I'd like to use a simple addition like "uncommon in actual usage," which I used. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Adding "in actual usage" is a big improvement, which is all I needed. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium became much more available to the general public with the Hall–Héroult process independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886 and the Bayer process developed by Austrian chemist Carl Joseph Bayer in 1889." If two people developed the Hall–Héroult, then it wasn't independent, simply put.

  Sorry, I didn't understand this one. The point is, both Heroult and Hall (two people who didn't know each other and weren't related in any other way) came up with the same principles that could be applied to aluminum production and both actually tested them at the same time, unaware of the other co-inventor's work. It is a mere coincidence that two different people in two different countries came up with this. There is no real priority between these two (after reading the book I most heavily relied on while writing this article, Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, I got the impression that Heroult was the more innovative one, but then I've seen a few times Americans in the Internet claiming Hall was the more innovative one, and they, too, had their valid points), so the process is named after both.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah... sorry about that. This is one of many of my comments where I was unsure what you meant by "independently". See my later comment. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Introduction of these methods to mass production of aluminium led to the extensive use of the metal in industry and everyday lives." This is the correct instance of "extensive use", and should be left as is. Could you clarify what other industries that aluminium is utilized in, for "everyday lives" is very much subjective.

  I will think about what exactly should be added here; in the meantime, I restored a sentence on this.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've altered it a bit further; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  Adding the examples was a great help here. The lead looks pretty good so far! I wouldn't recommend anymore changes on that front. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1813, American chemist Benjamin Silliman repeated Hare's experiment and obtained small granules of the sought-after metal, which almost immediately burned." I do not believe that this sentence elicits its own paragraph; I suggest a merger of this with the paragraph talking about Hare's experiment, suggesting that Hare's experiment would later be repeated by Silliman along with Silliman's results.

  Tony above made a similar comment but I really don't see what's wrong with this given the chronological order the events are listed in. I think that the chronological order is important and should be preserved as long as possible. It is only slightly corrupted in the last two sections which deal with overlapping continuous processes rather than single events.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Okay fair, I can agree with you here. I have had a self-evaluation on the importance of chronology in wikipedia articles (such as my very much underwhelming conclusion of a GAR for Origin and use of the term metalloid), and decided that keeping small paragraph featuring different time stamps is actually important for the article's overall readability and the reader's understanding. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; by the time of the next fair in 1878, aluminium had become a symbol of the future." Saying that "aluminium had become the symbol for the future" is subjective and also not factually valid (even though it may hold true to a certain extent, but that's not the point).

  I agree, it is indeed overly vague and subjective, thanks for noticing this. I'll work on it.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've checked the source and it turned out I didn't paraphrase it accurately. I have corrected the sentence; please take a look.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  At the next fair in Paris in 1867, the visitors were presented with aluminium wire and foil; at the next fair in 1878, aluminium was considered the most important technological and scientific breakthrough. Considered by whom? Consideration is still subjective unless we are aware of the source of the considering. Even "considered by many" is slightly better, however then we wouldn't know who the "many" are. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for making me look into this; I would've probably not even given it a thought if it wasn't for you. The source I used didn't go into detail about this; they actually said something like "it was considered the top achievement, period." I grew suspicious and tried to google this; it doesn't appear that aluminum was so amazing (makes sense, it wasn't the metal first public appearance and it was still rare). I have found two possibly good sources but not only are they in French but also not available online and thus out of my reach. I doubt I'd find anything astonishing, though, and thus removed any mention of the 1878 fair (and relocated the mention of the 1867 fair).--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854, independently by Deville and the German chemist Robert Wilhelm Bunsen." Did you mean to include "developed?" And once again, not truly independently. I'd pick a different adjective.

  I don't see the problem with prose here but I'd like to. I didn't mean to include "developed." Consider this sentence: "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds fine, doesn't it? The phrase in the article is essentially this after you have removed "independently," which doesn't affect the grammar used here.

  I don't see what's so bad about "independently." They were working on their own without sharing their work with each other, after all. However, I don't insist on this particular word but I can't come up with a good replacement. Could you help me?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Here we have another misinterpretation of the word "independently". I saw two names, so I figured it was wrong. After reading through your response to mine, I realized that I was wrong on my judgement of the word. See my comment below (I'll let you know which one).

  However, you asked me to consider "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 by Deville." Sounds good. Why then is there a comma after "1854"? The comma is what made me think you meant to include "developed". If the sentence read "Aluminium was first synthesized electrolytically in 1854 independently by Deville," I wouldn't have a problem. Correct me if the new grammar is wrong, I'm no expert. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  I actually don't know, English punctuation never was my specialty. I have read rules on it several times but little has imprinted in my brain. So... can't tell. Let's leave out the comma for now but have it back if anyone shows a rule that supports it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The first large-scale production method was independently developed by French engineer Paul Héroult and American engineer Charles Martin Hall in 1886; it is now known as the Hall–Héroult process." All three instances of the word "independently" are all incorrect. Only use "independently" if the development was indeed by a sole person without any outside input from others.

  But what's wrong with it now? While they worked at the same time, both indeed did so without any outside input.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  You're right, it was never wrong in the first place. I just misinterpreted. See comment below (directly below) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "At the same time, Hall produced aluminium by the same process in his home at Oberlin, and successfully tested it at the smelter in Lockport." So what you are telling me is that Hall and Héroult produced aluminium by the SAME process at the SAME time? I personally would love to know more how the two came together to collaborate and create one singular "Hall–Héroult process", or how they happened to devise a method summary and perform the aluminium production simultaneously. Unless there was no input between the two and they truly created almost identical methods on their own, that they actually performed the process independently, and I was wrong the whole entire time about the "independent" debate. The creation of the Hall–Héroult process could use some more elaboration on the relationship between both Héroult's and Hall's processes and/or collaborations.

  Yes, exactly! They came up with the same process. However, they did not collaborate at all.

  Since it was unclear to you, I'd love to do something to make sure other readers won't make that mistake. I'll think about it; I'll also gladly listen to anything you have to say on this if there is anything.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Here is the "comment below". Yeah, I couldn't tell that they were doing this separately at first. Every time you said "independently", there were always two names. I'm unsure how to clarify this, but perhaps some insight on the creation of the Hall–Héroult process would be appreciate. On the page dedicated to it, there is no history section. This article could be a good place to include such information, being it is called "HISTORY of aluminium". You could also use "separately" to show that they were not collaborating, or "at the same time" to show the simultaneity of their synthesis. Each of those wordings, if used at all, should fit the instance that "independently" is used, and I'm not forcing you to even change the wordings in the first place. Maybe its only me who didn't understand. Regardless, its up to you. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't quite understand what kind of insight you want. Probably I could provide it, but what are you suggesting?

  "Separately" seems to carry the same meaning as "independently" but the latter word seems better suited for an encyclopedia, so I'd rather keep it.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  By insight on the creation of the Hall-Héroult process, I was referring to when the process was named jointly after both of the developers. Because they were working separately, someone must have figured out that they both were completing the process at the same time (or else it would be called the "Hall process" or the "Héroult process". However, this info would be best linked to the actual article for the Hall Héroult process, so I don't have an issue about it. Sorry I didn't say anything at the start. I wish there was a definitive way to make it clearer for the "independently" debacle, but that's the best you and I can do, and that is perfectly fine. If you have better ideas, just let me know. I'm fine with what is there now that I understand it, but improves are never bad. That's all I've got; should have made it clear. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well, people did eventually figure it out but apparently only after both Hall and Heroult got their patents because the patent office in France (Hall filed his patent a month earlier IIRC) did not find any mention of the process being patented in the United States; maybe even the news didn't spread that quickly at all and the French bureaucrats couldn't possibly find such information at the time. And they did not become market competitors in 1886 or 1888; it only occurred later that there was a point of transporting aluminum across the Atlantic Ocean because the market for aluminum was still small at that point.

  Nevertheless, I'm happy that there's nothing wrong with the article. I've got no ideas on improvement but it seems fine now. I'm surprised this puzzled you in the first place.--R8R (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Prices for aluminium declined, and the metal had become widely used in jewelry, many everyday items, eyeglass frames, and optical instruments by the early 1890s." I personally would introduce the year before you describe the development of aluminium usage in said year. Even if you don't, the first four words constitute a fragment, and require that "the" be placed at the beginning, even if it isn't usually spoken as such. If "the" is added, the sentence still requires a sentence rearrangement, for it is unknown when the prices for aluminium declined. Finally, it is viable to include a general term in a list, such as "many everyday items" as it is currently written. However, if you are going to do so, make sure that the general term concludes the list rather than sits in the middle of it. One possible suggestion that combines all of my own is as follows, "By the early 1890s, the prices for aluminium declined as the metal became widely used in jewelry, eyeglass frames, optical instruments, and many everyday items." In my opinion, even that simple fix makes a huge difference.

  In my understanding, prices for aluminum fell first (after the production costs fell) and then, since it was cheaper and therefore things made of it were also cheaper, it became used in more and more applications. Also, yes, I don't know when exactly prices for aluminum fell: there is little statistical data from the 19th century. So I'd love to keep the "prices declined" part separate from rest of the sentence. I tried some rewording; please see if it's okay with you.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yup, the wording is all good now! No problems there anymore. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Without these shipments, the efficiency of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." Over a half? Half of what? I believe I know what you mean, but simply stating "over a half" is not concise enough for an encyclopedia. Perhaps either a better worded clarification, or a hard quantity instead of "over a half".

  I have rephrased the sentence to "Without these shipments, the output of the Soviet aircraft industry would have fallen by over a half." This seems clearer to me. Unfortunately, hard quantities are not available.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  I have checked ru.wiki and they say that the U.S. aluminum aid from Lend-Lease was equal to 106% of the Soviet Union's own production. However, they suggest a different absolute quantity of this aid (301 thousand metric tons vs. 328 as stated in this article), so I guess we can't rely on exact percentages since data differs by source. The current wording seems fine to me anyway.--R8R (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's fine. I'll give it a pass if there isn't any quantities available. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Production fell after the war but then rose again." Oh man, this sentence needs a whole lot of justification/clarification. Either that, or it can be deleted, since it doesn't truly add anything all too meaningful to the understandably of the section it is placed in. If it is kept, we will need to know when and by how much production fell, and why (perhaps due to the lack of previously warring countries' need for tanks and jets, and therefore lack of need for aluminium to build them). Moreover, we will also need to know when, how much, and why the production rose again at this alluded time and place.

  Hmm. This sentence comes exclusively from statistical data from United States Geological Survey (you can read the MS Excel document in the source if you want or look at the graph in the next section). I intended to make this section span over the period of time from immediately after the Hall--Heroult process was first used to 1950. (And the next section begins with an event in the 1950s.) I have no explanation supported by sources at the moment but the general idea seems obvious: production of aluminum was extremely intensified (the fact that a British minister pleaded to the nation to donate aluminum is very descriptive; I will easily believe that miners and workers at factories overworked: their country was at war; et cetera) and this intensification caused by the war could not last forever.

  Also, we don't go into such detail for other brief production anomalies, and there were other anomalies. For example, the cost of electricity has always been a factor and production even fell a few times when prices rose, even in the first half of the 20th century. But then prices fell back down and production rose again.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Once again, I guess you're right. I'll give the Excel a view. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In the second half of the 20th century, the Space Race began. Earth's first artificial satellite, launched in 1957, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres, and almost all subsequent spacecraft have been made of aluminium." First off, the second sentence's grammar is off. Second and more importantly, explicitly stating that the Space Race began is completely unnecessary information. IMPLYING that it began resulting in the need of aluminium for satellites and spacecraft is COMPLETELY necessary information. If you really feel the need to let the reader know that the Space Race is in progress in that moment in history, which I personally would, simply say something along the lines of, "Earth's first artificial satellite, which launched in 1957 for the Space Race, consisted of two joined aluminium hemispheres. Since then, almost all subsequent spacecraft have been created using aluminium parts." I personally would also include "which launched in 1957 for the Space Race beginning earlier that year" to set a time frame and to link the launching of Sputnik 1 with the beginning of the Space Race. But that's just me and my grain of salt.

  You have a good point in saying that we don't need to announce the Space Race. I see no need to mention the Space Race at all as this is not an article on the Cold War; the fact that could matter is that the humanity is making a new achievement by entering the space, but the geopolitical squabble around it is irrelevant in this story about aluminum (and not geopolitics).--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  All good now. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe a see also page as well, linking to Aluminium and any other "history of (Element X) articles (such as History of fluorine)?

  I see little point in linking to aluminium as linked Aluminium is literally the first word in this article. A list of other History of X articles could work but I can only think of history of fluorine (to which I contributed during back when the text was in the main fluorine article) and, obviously, this one. I'll have this list of one, though.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  You're right about the aluminium, my bad. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's practically my list. Once these get finished, I'll be sure to reread the article to look for anything else I could find to help. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for taking your time. I hope you enjoyed the article overall.--R8R (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  No problem, I'm at about a 97% 100% support! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been busy lately and it took me whole five days to reply. Glad to see that this sorted out even in my absence.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "It is possible that the Chinese produced aluminium-containing alloys during the reign of the first Jin dynasty (265–420)" - the footnote provided seems to focus on this not being possible, suggest rewording

  On the contrary, the first sentence in the note explains how production of aluminum alloys could be possible, the second sentence explains why production of pure aluminum wasn't possible, and the third sentence adds a slightly different approach (could be produced, but a little later) by an expert. I'd gladly change something to avoid any future confusion but I don't see what I could do without adding more linking words ("The researchers think this was possible because alumina was plentiful...") that take more space but add no more meaning. If you think something needs to be done, could you please suggest a direction to look into?--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Small alum mines were worked in Catholic Europe" - source?

  I reworded this a little and added a source.--R8R (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Source for footnote e?

  This is purely my own observation after I looked for the papers mentioned in the work. However, the note used to explicitly say it only referred to the mentioned in the article works (and so the sources were the works themselves). I've added that detail back.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN6: pages?

  Added.--R8R (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ranges in titles should use endashes

  I see you are referring to ref 12 (changed). I looked through the reference list and found only one more occurrence of a ranges in the title (ref 68), which was properly formatted; if there are any others that require fixing, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Also FN86. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how edition statements are formatted

  Changed all to |edition=n.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Be consistent in whether a plain number is used - compare FN1 and 82. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Ref 1 was defined outside of the article; that's why my search for "|edition=" in the wiki text missed it. Defined it within the article with the edition formatting changed.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN23: other refs don't include publishers for journals

  I agree, that's superfluous. Removed.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include access dates

  I thought the rule was to include access dates when the source is not available online and does not have a unique identifier (such as DOI). I was surprised at how many references broke this rule; in fact, all of them did! So I removed all access dates; if I should've kept any, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN34: provided link gives a publication date of 2015

  Changed.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN40 is incomplete

  Replaced it with a new one.--R8R (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN43: other books don't include location

  I've always thought that was superfluous, so I've removed this location.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN48: link gives date of 2006 and edition statement is missing

  Changed and added.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN57 is incomplete

  Replaced it with a new one.--R8R (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN60 should include publisher. Same with 69

  Done.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN65: edition statement should be separate from title

  Done.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN66 should cite the specific chapter of interest

  Modified the reference.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN68: link gives a different publisher

  Changed the publisher.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN65 and 70 are the same

  Well spotted; combined these.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• What makes FN73 a high-quality reliable source? 81? 82?

  (Now refs 72, 80, and 81) Ref 72 seems fine to me despite its overly catchy title as this is clearly a history book (as opposed to a fantasy book) that refers exactly to the time period in question, but I'll look for a replacement that focuses on the military aspect of World War II. Ref 80 is a research paper; I don't see why it got your attention in the first place. I'll look for a replacement for ref 81.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Found a worthy replacement for ref 72. Will look for a replacement for ref 81 later.--R8R (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  I formatted ref 82 and removed the claim backed by ref 83 and the ref itself.--R8R (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)--R8R (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  What was FN80 is now FN93, which is a research paper but one that doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed? What is the author's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  I see. Good point. Replaced it with a work of the U.S. federal government.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• FN75: author formatting doesn't match other books. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  (Now ref 74) Changed.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Well this is one of the longest-running FACs I can recall (albeit a pretty specialised topic) so if Nikki can check responses/actions and R8R can tie up any loose ends ASAP that'd be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Should be good to go on sourcing now. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  @FAC coordinators: This FAC was started 2 months, 21 days ago and it is still open. It looks like it's generally positive towards promotion of the article, there has been no opposition to that. Ian Rose suggested I "tie up any loose ends" and I think I did that fairly soon after the call, didn't I? I've checked a few times and I can't find anything left. But if there actually is something that I've missed and that's the reason why all three of you are still keeping this review open, I will immediately fix that so this long-standing review doesn't go to waste. Please give me the directions and I will make the improvements very shortly.--R8R (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.