Talk:Rhenium/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article deserves GA status. It is well written, neutral, stable and well referenced (thus verifiable). The topic is of top importance. There were minor problems with style, references and a few statements, revealed by two referees. Those problems were fixed in the review process. The comments are listed below.Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The lead should be more specific (accentuated) on rarity and wide oxidation range of Re. "Low availability" and "polyvalent" are too unspecific.

Added two sentences to the lead.--stone

2) "The metal form is prepared by reducing ammonium perrhenate with hydrogen at high temperatures" - please add approx. temperature in brackets.

I found no temperature in the text books I have, will search in the science literature, but for now unknown is the best what I can provide. --stone

3) "Other uses" the last item needs a reference.

Added ref on technetium and rhenium chemistry article.--stone

4) Many "general" web sources claim rhenium is used for jewellery plating. I was wondering, is it an unsubstantiated rumour or real application ?

....(rhenium).... ,but has not so far attracted the jewelry trade's interest, presumably it is likely to remain an interesting oddity to the world at large, and no more.doi:10.1016/S0026-0576(03)80439-7 Rhenium plating. For me this sounds like a copy paste error from the CRC book or similar source.--stone

5) Extra info on toxicity would be nice (difficult to find though; if not then not).

Some ref said that it is so rare that influence on biology is unknown and that even contamination by mine traylig is unknown. So I look for some rat date which should be somewhere.--stone

Will try this: doi:10.1002/jps.2600570218 Pharmacology and toxicology of potassium perrhenate and rhenium trichloride

added sentence and ref.--Stone (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6) I added a fact on self-cleaning contacts, but don't have a reference at hand (perhaps it is already in the article). Would be fine if you could fix this.

The Naumov paper speaks about this application! Added the ref to that para.--Stone (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NIMSoffice (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7) The article contains less information than most other element GAs. I understand rhenium is a very rare metal, but some other reviewers might not. If possible, please add extra (referenced and useful) information, during or after this review. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (NIMSoffice)[reply]

Reywas92's review

"Rhenium has the widest range of oxidation states of any known element: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6 and +7. The oxidation states +7, +6, +4, +2 and -1 are the most common." needs a source.
Note. reference is needed in "characteristics", not in the lead (ref. [15] ?). A few clear examples of negative oxidation states would be nice to mention in a proper place.Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a example (Na[Re(CO)₅).--Stone (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have found nothing about the -3 and -2, but the -1 is known and I gave a reference for it.--Stone (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"but occurs in amounts up to 0.2% in the mineral molybdenite, the major commercial source." needs a source
The Woolf and the Rouschias paper are the reference one is quoting 0.2 the other 0.1.--Stone (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So does "Some molybdenum ores contain 0.002% to 0.2% rhenium."
Note on both. If the references of the follow-up sentences cover these facts then refs are not needed.Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from the same reference Woolf and Rouschias.--Stone (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, I see no majot problems. When referenced, with concurrence of original reviewer, I think this article is ready for GA. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and thank you for help and copyedit. BTW, how is it possible that your copyedit resulted in (-1,618) bytes difference? I don't see major cuts in the text diff.Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!--Stone (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]