Talk:Gallium

2005 comments

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:20, 1 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 17:27, 14 June 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Gallium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Gallium Statistics and Information, the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gallium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div836/836.05/papers/magnum90ITS90guide.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div836/836.05/papers/Strouse99GaTP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing word in 'other uses' section.

It currently reads "This experiment showed that the solar neutrino flux is 40% than had been predicted by theory." Presumably there should be a 'lower' or 'higher' in there. 80.176.229.143 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup, my goof. Should be "40% less". Thanks. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gallium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Very relevant to the subject.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article deserves to be passed, despite the absence of the nominator.

A suggestion would be to include a few more photos, but it is not a must. Gug01 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a few pictures. There aren't many pictures of Ga compounds on WP, I suspect because they tend to be colourless. Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Double sharp:

Normal human body temperature?

Hey Wikipedians!

I'd like to pose a question to the more experienced among you: should the following sentence from the Gallium summary be revised?

Elemental gallium is a liquid at temperatures greater than 29.76 °C (85.57 °F), and will melt in a person's hands at normal human body temperature of 37.0 °C (98.6 °F).

The reason I ask is because I was listening to an episode of Radiolab two days ago titled "Kleptotherms" (published May 5, 2021), and one of the primary things that was talked about was the fact that it is essentially a myth that the normal healthy human body temperature is 37.0°C or 98.6°F. I'm wondering, is it worth revising that line in the Gallium summary? Its inclusion seems quite inconsequential in this context, but the information is still technically inaccurate (from what I have heard/read), and allowing it to remain as-is may contribute to the perpetuation of this myth. That's why I'd like to defer to someone more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and standards so they can make a determination on what, if anything, should be done. Thanks! :)

(I only have a little experience when it comes to editing Wikipedia, and I'm still pretty new to the way things work. If I'm doing anything wrong here, please let me know. Constructive criticism is always welcome and greatly appreciated!)

--TheWizardG (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheWizardG, it would be fine to change to read "temperature of around 37 °C" instead (see Human body temperature). Regardless of the precise value of body temperature, it is still always going to be much higher than the melting temperature of Ga. Polyamorph (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)