Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samarium/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 May 2023 [1].

Samarium[edit]

Nominator(s): 141Pr {contribs} 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lanthanide with interesting properties; used in magnets, nuclear reactors, catalysts .etc. I sent this article to a PR a few months ago, and addressed ComplexRational's comments on the article. Hopefully, this article will continue to improve and be FA! :) 141Pr {contribs} 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Praseodymium, I gather this would be your first FA if successful, in which case welcome...! As a reminder for reviewers and fellow coords, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing will be required at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Casliber[edit]

  • Good to see an element - will take a look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dumb question, is the convention to write "samarium(II)" without a space before the first parenthesis? Looks a bit squishy. Cas Liber
      Yes this is convention for noting valence. -DePiep (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • link "luster". Cas Liber
      IMO common word, so not done. YMMV. -DePiep (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • link trigonal, monoclinic, boule, orthorhombic
      Should the links be added to these words in the compounds template or somewhere else? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw them in the body of the text so would link there - and compounds template is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and the soluble ones are only slightly toxic. - err, if slightly toxic, what is the actual toxicity to - liver, kidney, blood etc.
      This source and a couple others say that soluble Sm salts are slightly toxic when ingested without going into specifics. Is the source reliable and is this specific enough? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks ok on comprehensiveness and prose, hence Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DePiep[edit]

  • wrt Isotopes of samarium (the 10 main isotopes end up in the article infobox): have cleaned up towards base reference NUBASE2020. Samarium-146 needs attention (fix references used/notused), see talk.
-DePiep (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be resolved. 141Pr {contribs} 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#36, Bärnighausen: could not resolve "journal title=none". -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samarium § Compounds table header: a, b, c not explained. BTW, folded table in article body?
The same table is there in the Samarium compounds article, so the table might not be necessary in this section. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. 141Pr {contribs} 17:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Infobox samarium}} uses "α, α form, poly" substances (allotropes?). But none of these is described (mentioned) in article body. Also, are they synonyms or different names? -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about this. 141Pr {contribs} 20:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by InterstellarGamer12321[edit]

The only issues with the article I have found so far have been highlighted by other commenters. Remaining issues are minor. Therefore I support the promotion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Lecoq_de_Boisbaudran.jpg: source link is dead, needs an author date of death and US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know how to fix this, can someone else do this? 141Pr {contribs} 20:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh[edit]

The prose was not up to FAC standard. I have copyedited it an attempt to rectify this. Along the way I left several superscripted notes which need to be addressed. The statement, "Samarium is one of the few lanthanides that exhibit the +2 oxidation state" is false; all the Ln are capable of exhibiting the +2 state.

The lede did not match the flow of the main body of the article; I adjusted the lede accordingly.

A drop down table is not allowed, AFAIK, in a FA article. The article later says, "As reflected in the table above...". Such geographic expressions are eschewed AFAIK, given problems with how articles are displayed on various devices.

I intend to support the nomination once the outstanding notes; the +2 mention; the drop down table; and the "table above" expression have been fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments:
  1. I haven't addressed the superscript yet. I'll address them one by one when I find that I have time.
  2. For the +2 oxidation state, AFAIK, Sm is one of the only ones that commonly exhibit the +2 oxidation state, so shall I add the word "commonly"?
  3. Shall I remove the table? As stated above, the table is also included in the samarium compounds article.
  4. Removed the expression.
141Pr {contribs} 19:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. You could say, "Samarium is one of the few lanthanides with a relatively accessible +2 oxidation state, alongside Eu and Yb." and cite Wenliang Huang, Paula L Diaconescu 2021, Organometallic chemistry of lanthanides in Stephen T Liddle, David P Mills, Louise Sarah Natrajan (eds), Lanthanides And Actinides: Synthesis, Reactivity, Properties And Applications, World Scientific, London, 978-1-80061-017-0, p. 213

3. The table can stay; just remove its collapsibility. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done 2 and 3. 141Pr {contribs} 07:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 remaining superscripts:

  • The main commercial use of samarium is in samarium–cobalt magnets, which have permanent magnetization second only to neodymium magnets; however, samarium compounds can withstand significantly higher temperatures, above 700 °C (1,292 °F), without losing their magnetic properties, due to the alloy's higher Curie point.[eh?] - I don't see the problem here, can you explain?
What is a Curie point? Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed due to the alloy's higher Curie point, as it is already explained well enough. 141Pr {contribs} 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sintering powders of samarium oxide and boron, in a vacuum, yields a powder containing several samarium boride phases; their volume ratio[eh?] can be controlled through the mixing proportion. - what shall I do to this?
    Made more clear.
  • The powder can be converted into larger crystals of a certain[which one?] samarium boride using arc melting or zone melting techniques, relying on the different melting/crystallization temperature of SmB6 (2580 °C), SmB4 (about 2300 °C) and SmB66 (2150 °C). - "A certain" refers to the second half of the sentence here, i.e. SmB6, SmB4, SmB66.
    Done.
  • A rocket spreads it as a red vapor[Sm or one of its compounds?] at high altitude, and researchers tests how the atmosphere disperses it and how it impacts radio transmissions. - The citation here says Clouds of vaporized samarium (Sm) were released during sounding rocket flights from the Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll in May 2013 as part of the Metal Oxide Space Cloud (MOSC) experiment., so I guess it's just Sm vapor here.
A guess will not do for an FA article. Holmes attributes the red color to the emission spectrum of SmO. Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed the statement to samarium monoxide. 141Pr {contribs} 08:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samarium hexaboride, SmB6, has recently been shown to be a topological insulator[inconsistent with earlier mention of SmB6] with potential uses in quantum computing. - the earlier mention is New research seems to show that SmB6 may be a topological insulator., so I don't see any inconsistencies.
Is it a "may” or an "is"? If the latter, why is the former mentioned? Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed former mention. 141Pr {contribs} 09:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully addressed the issues here (apart from the first one), let me know if you would need further improvements to be made to the article. 141Pr {contribs} 16:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all superscripts, please can you review the article and check for further issues? 141Pr {contribs} 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling[edit]

  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (6 with; 4 without);
  • Botimer, J.; Kim; Thomas; Grant; Fisk; Jing Xia (2013). Missing first name for: Kim; Missing first name for: Thomas; Missing first name for: Grant; Missing first name for: Fisk;
  • Zhang, Xiaohang; Butch; Syers; Ziemak; Greene; Paglione (2013). Missing first name for: Butch; Missing first name for: Syers; Missing first name for: Ziemak; Missing first name for: Greene; Missing first name for: Paglione
  • The lanthanides and actinides : synthesis, reactivity, properties and applications. Stephen T. Liddle, David P. Mills, Louise S. Natrajan. London. 2 {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  • Bärnighausen, H. (1973). Rev. Chim. Miner. 10: 77–92.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical
  • phys.org. "45-year Physics Mystery Shows a Path to Quantum Transistors". Missing first name for: phys.org;
I think that's the name of the site, not a person's name. 141Pr {contribs} 17:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better to cite the actual article. Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that article. 141Pr {contribs} 08:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammond, C. R. (2004-06-29). "The Elements". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). "Magnetic susceptibility of the elements and inorganic compounds". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory (PDF). Missing ISBN; § Lingzhi (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the ISBN. 141Pr {contribs} 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a US DOE technical report it would not’ve had an ISBN. Sandbh (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammond, C. R. (2004-06-29). "The Elements". Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. p. 4-27. ISBN 0-8493-0485-7. Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 1 without)
  1. Click the blue ISBN
  2. Go to "Find this book at WorldCat". Others may be just as good, but I feel comfortable with WorldCat's WP:RS. They are OCLC etc.
  3. Oopsie, this isbn pulls up "CRC handbook of chemistry and physics : a ready-reference book of chemical and physical data. Author: David R. Lide Print Book, English, 85th ed. Publisher:CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., ©2004" Wha-a-a-a-a-at? Something seems amiss here.
  4. And after you find the right book, you can also find the location there...
  • Also see "Bärnighausen, H. (1973). Rev. Chim. Miner. 10: 77–92. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Missing or empty |title= " Missing title?
  • And I'll probably get shouted down here, but don't put Rev. Chim. Miner. for the journal name. That's inside baseball. Spell. It. Out. For. The. General. Public. It's Revue de chimie minérale. : Revue für anorganische Chemie. [Inorganic chemistry review].. Search the MLA and APA documentation for how to correctly punctuate etc.
You will not get shouted down, you are quite correct. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinoshita, N.; ... (2012-03-30). "A Shorter 146Sm Half-Life Measured and Implications for 146Sm-142Nd Chronology in the Solar System". Science.Retracted, see doi:10.1126/science.adh7739. If this is an intentional citation to a retracted paper, please replace (Retracted. If this is an intentional citation to a retracted paper, please replace {{retracted|...}} with {{retracted|...|intentional=yes}}.) with (Retracted).)
  • DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory (PDF). U.S. Department of Energy. January 1993. pp. 34, 67. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-22. Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (6 with; 2 without); Missing ISBN... what's the isbn? I dunno. So after deep, soul-searching thought. I tried googling "DOE FUNDAMENTALS HANDBOOK NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND REACTOR THEORY volume 2 of 2 isbn" (note the "isbn" at the end). I came up with 2 results: ISBN-10. 1304064948 ; ISBN-13. 978-1304064943;DOE Fundamentals Handbook - Mathematics (Volume 2 of 2) ISBN：9781365110375. Which one? I dunno. You find out. It's your job.
  • Delafontaine, Marc (1878). "Sur le décepium, métal nouveau de la samarskite". Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences (in French). 87: 632. Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.). It's 1878. Screw it.
  • I fixed some stuff for you, but none of this is deep magic. It's google, google scholar, worldcat, even amazon sometimes, etc. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source #37 is broken. Are Lyn.corp, oelimaging, tenzo-sms.ru and centerwatch high-quality reliable sources? And the former stable enough that it can give a long-term average price? DOE Handbook, tenzo-sms.ru and ipen.br ought to be explained in the source (i.e identifiers, links). Date format is slightly inconsistent - sometimes the month is spelled out and sometimes it isn't. "United States Geological Surves" is a typo. Spot-check:

  • 2: OK.
  • 11: I don't see the sourced information in the source.
  • 12: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 14: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 19: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 22: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 27: Some of the data given aren't supported by the source.
  • 32: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 46: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 58: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 59: Link is broken.
  • 65: OK.
  • 75: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 97: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 98: OK.
  • 109: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 111: Not sure where the low efficiency and UV absorption are mentioned.
  • 116: OK, got to wonder why this use was singled out for one paragraph.
  • 119: OK, got to wonder why this use was singled out for one paragraph.
  • 120: As above.

Not source related per se, but there are a lot of very short paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I can do this one; I've fixed the typo but that's about as far as I can do here. 141Pr {contribs} 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Maybe post a request for help, and perhaps further reviews, on the FAC talk page? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (more) by Sandbh[edit]

User:Praseodymium-141 What was it that you needed help with? --- Sandbh (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the source review and Ling's comments. 141Pr {contribs} 08:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have 2½ supports so far.

So, start with Ling's first outstanding comment and go from there:

Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (6 with; 4 without);---this should be easily fixable.
Bärnighausen, H. (1973). Rev. Chim. Miner. 10: 77–92. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): CS1 maint: untitled periodical---this should be easily fixable.
Hammond, C. R. (2004-06-29). "The Elements". Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. p. 4-27. ISBN 0-8493-0485-7. Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 1 without)---this should be easily fixable.

etc

Looking at one item from his source review:

12: Anyone got access to this source?

Source 12 is:

a b c d Shi, N.; Fort, D. (1985). "Preparation of samarium in the double hexagonal close packed form". Journal of the Less Common Metals. 113 (2): 21. doi:10.1016/0022-5088(85)90294-2.

Here:

a = a tetragonal phase appearing at about 900 kbar.
b = Thin films of samarium obtained by vapor deposition may contain the hcp or dhcp phases in ambient conditions.
c = trigonal samarium
d = hexagonal samarium

Item b is indeed mentioned by Shi & Fort. However they say nothing in support of a, c and d that I could see.

This is rather concerning given the comments for items 11, 27 and 111 by Ling.

Looking at cites 1 to 10, following.

1. Standard atomic weight Ar°(Sm) 150.36±0.02 150.36±0.02 (abridged)[1]

I do not understand the need for two entries for atomic weight nor the mention of "abridged". Citation 1 does not use this term.

2. Both sources check out.

3. Checks out but mention of "SmB6-" should be to "SmB6-",

4. Correct.

5. The date of the source is shown as 1984 but is in fact 1983. The page number is shown as E110 but is in fact E-112. The units are shown as cm3/mol but in the reference are shown as cgs. The figure in reference is for a temperature of 291 K; this should be noted in the WP entry. The ISBN of 0-8493-0464-4 should be converted to 13-number format.

6. An entry for 145Sm is missing (half-life 340 days). The half-life for 146Sm does not check out; the source lists it as 68 My. There is no consistency in rounding of abundances and half-lives.

7. I could not find anything in the citation supporting the assertion that "Samarium has no significant biological role; some samarium salts are slightly toxic."

8. The source says, "Samarium has no significant biological role".

9. This source supports the listed boiling point of Sm. i do not understand why it is required since source 10 says the same thing.

10. This source is linked to the 81st (2000) edition of the CRC Handbook but the WP entry strangely says it is for the edition of "2004-06-29", whatever that means. The entry in the CRC Handbook does not support the WP statement that, "samarium is the third most volatile lanthanide after ytterbium and europium and comparable in this respect to lead and barium; this helps separation of samarium from its ores."

The better news is that Samarium has only 123 citations and it should be possible for you to recheck all of these citations in a reasonable amount of time.

I should be able to help with any tricky items but not with checking all 123 citations. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with citations 11 to 20.

11. "Samarium is calculated to have one of the largest atomic radii of the elements; with a radius of 238 pm, only potassium, praseodymium, barium, rubidium and caesium are larger."

The citation only partly checks out. It only covers from He to Rn. Potassium, praseodymium, barium, rubidium and caesium are indeed larger. I note La and Ce have larger radii shown in parentheses. The paper does not explain what the parentheses mean.

12. Was noted above and does not check out.

13. "The metal transforms to an antiferromagnetic state upon cooling to 14.8 K."

The article says, "it is believed [italics added] that these metals become anti-ferromagnetic below these temperatures." Since the article is from 1957 there is probably a more recent citations that would confirm this.

14. Cited to support #13, above. Checks out.

15. "Individual samarium atoms can be isolated by encapsulating them into fullerene molecules."

Correct.

16. "They can also be doped (intentional adding of samarium atoms) between the C60 molecules in the fullerene solid, rendering it superconductive at temperatures below 8 K."

The source says at a temperature of 8 K, rather than at temperatures below 8 K. The WP sentence is badly constructed. It should say something like, "Samarium atoms can be intercalated into the interstices of bulk C60 to form a solid solution of nominal composition Sm3C60, which is superconducting at a temperature of 8 K.

17. "Samarium doping of iron-based superconductors – a class of high-temperature superconductor – increases their transition to normal conductivity temperature up to 56 K, the highest value achieved so far in this series."

Correct

18. "Samarium is quite electropositive and reacts slowly with cold water and rapidly with hot water to form samarium hydroxide:"

The citation is to Webelements. Retrieved 2009-06-06. A more reliable source is needed.

19. "Samarium dissolves readily in dilute sulfuric acid to form solutions containing the yellow..."

The citation is to "Greenwood", which refers to Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth–Heinemann. ISBN 0-08-037941-9. The citation should say, "c:.

The ISBN needs to be converted to 13 digit form.

The citation does not check out; I could not find any reference in the source to samarium acting in this way.

Found in Greenwood & Earnshaw 1997 page p. 1243, saying that the Sm3+ is yellow in aqueous solutions. Doesn't explicitly say that sulfuric acid dissolves samarium metal, but considering that it readily reacts with water, it would do with sulfuric acid too. Keres🌕Luna edits! 20:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20. "Samarium is one of the few lanthanides with a relatively accessible +2 oxidation state, alongside Eu and Yb."

This citation is factually correct but incorrectly sourced. The source is given as "Stephen T. Liddle; David P. Mills; Louise S. Natrajan, eds. (2022). The lanthanides and actinides: synthesis, reactivity, properties and applications. London. p. 213". The source is actually to a chapter in the book, namely "Organometallic Chemistry of Lanthanides" by Wenliang Huang and Paula L. Diaconescu, pp. 209 to 310.

Conclusion

Out of 20 citations, I assess that 14 have defects.

Unless these defects are corrected fairly promptly, and the remaining 103 citations are rechecked, things are not looking good for this nomination. Not to mention that all of this should have been done before submitting the article to FAC. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to fix them later, I was quite busy recently and not had time to check over these. (I'm not very good with citations though. ) 141Pr {contribs} 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandbh, many thanks for that, it is much appreciated. Praseodymium-141, I am afraid that a 70% failure rate in a spot check is a kiss of death. I mean, extrapolate this across the other 100+ cites. Frankly, if you are "not very good with citations" you should probably steer clear of FAC, or find a specialist collaborator who is. I am going to archive this as under prepared for FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Samarium/archive1&oldid=1157636991"