Talk:Neodymium: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Neodymium/Archive 1) (bot |
gan page specify |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{FailedGA|19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)|topic=null|page=2|oldid=1224421969}} |
|||
{{GA nominee|08:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)|nominator=<b>[[User talk:Praseodymium-141|<span style="color:#028A0F"><sup>141</sup></span>]][[User:Praseodymium-141|<span style="color:#A32CC4">Pr</span>]] {[[Special:Contributions/Praseodymium-141|contribs]]}</b>|page=2|subtopic=Chemistry and materials science|status=onreview|note=|shortdesc=}} |
|||
{{Failed GA|17:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)|page=1|subtopic=Chemistry and materials science}} |
{{Failed GA|17:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)|page=1|subtopic=Chemistry and materials science}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |vital=yes |1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |vital=yes |1= |
||
Latest revision as of 02:24, 26 May 2024
 | Neodymium was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| Neodymium was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 7, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
The table of Solar System abundances shows the relative abundance of Neodymium. This table does not appear in the source. No comparison to Neodymium is even made in the article. Thus the selection of rows, the values in the columns, and the implied significance of the comparison are all inventions.
Sources don't report the relative abundance of rare elements because they vary widely with source. Giving the ratio to three significant figures is completely unscientific. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not well acquainted with the methods of measuring elemental abundances in the solar system - is this a better source, as it states "Only elements with an accuracy of the solar abundance determination of better than 25% were included"? Reconrabbit 16:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! The study of the abundance of elements is critical to cosmology so there are many studies of various kinds going back nearly a hundred years. The key question here is whether the particulars of the table are significant or just an invention by an enterprising editor. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Puzzling change labeled "+ per GAN"?
[edit]In this recent change, @Praseodymium-141 changed a sentence related to glass impurities to one related to lanthanide separation. The new sentence seems out of context. I don't understand the change nor the cryptic edit summary. Why this change? Is it still supported by the ref? Johnjbarton (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The change was requested because the ref never supported the statements about glass impurities; it never mentions glass in the first place. I recommended the change in order to better reflect the information in the source; it probably needs additional work to put it in context with the rest of the paragraph. Information on historical neodymium glass production was not forthcoming. Reconrabbit 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)