Talk:Neodymium

Orphaned references in Neodymium

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Neodymium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Greenwood1229":

• From Cerium: Greenwood and Earnshaw, pp. 1229–1232
• From Praseodymium: Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 1229–32

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Done! Bli231957 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Marks Brothers

Who are Marks brothers as mentioned in Neodymium#History so that their opinion on the name is relevant? Jariola (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neodymium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Reconrabbit. I did an initial pass through of the article but will look more in depth as I go through the criteria. As an opening note, Praseodymium-141, the nominator, has contributed 45.9% of the article according to XTools. Reconrabbit 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to go any further on this review until the copied text is addressed. Reconrabbit 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. I will look at your initial comments over the next few days. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Putting this on hold until the maintenance tags are addressed at the least. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit reminder ping to close this out soon if you want it to count for the backlog drive. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about my progress in the backlog drive; please ignore this review as part of that effort. Pr-141 is making good efforts here. Reconrabbit 17:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through and commented on all the comments now. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I left my responses to most things. Almost there! I may have a delay because I'm away for the weekend and have to do everything on my phone. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem, that's fine. I've been really busy irl as well. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: Just a friendly ping (I've gone through all of them). ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 10:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just gotten back home late last night. I'll do a source check and then complete the review. Reconrabbit 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been a ton of issues coming up with the source checks. I'm not sure I can pass this. Will ask for a second opinion. Reconrabbit 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: friendly reminder. ¹⁴¹Pr -_\contribs/- 09:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

After trying to solicit a second opinion for almost a month without success I don't feel like the article can pass right now. Too many of the sources are low quality or couldn't be verified. This week I can go looking to see if I can address the last few things on my own, but there are still sources I haven't checked that could have similar issues. Reconrabbit 02:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The current article just has far too many source issues. I will have to fail it for now. Reconrabbit 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead section, second paragraph: This color changes with the type of lighting because of the interaction of the sharp light absorption bands of neodymium with ambient light enriched with the sharp visible emission bands of mercury, trivalent europium or terbium. This sentence is kind of run-on and needs to be rewritten, since it's a little too complex for the lead.

   Shall I remove the entire explanation or just the enriched part? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   On revision: this isn't that much of an issue and is clarified in the text. Reconrabbit 15:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   Neodymium-doped glasses could it be clarified that this means "glass that has been doped with neodymium"? Only because there is quite literally a photo of a pair of glasses later on.

   Clarified. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   History, second paragraph: The evolving technology, and improved purity of commercially available neodymium oxide, was reflected in the appearance of neodymium glasses in collections today. This sentence feels out of place. Maybe reword to exclude "evolving"?

   I agree that this sentence feels out of place. However, I don't know how to reword it either. Shall I remove it? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Find a better way to say "neodymium glass technology improved" or don't bother saying it at all, I think. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Reworded I guess. I'm not sure if it is better though. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   The wording is more straightforward and sticks out less in the paragraph, which I see as an improvement. Reconrabbit 15:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   History, third paragraph: Because of its role in permanent magnets used for direct-drive wind turbines, it has been argued that neodymium will be one of the main objects of geopolitical competition in a world running on renewable energy. This perspective has been criticised for failing to recognise that most wind turbines do not use permanent magnets, and for underestimating the power of economic incentives for expanded production. This is a weird inclusion and may be better added under applications. There's also a tone problem here. Sources are apparently reliable, but there has to be a more neutral way of saying this.

   I'm not sure what to do with this paragraph, but it certainly feels out of place. Shall I remove it? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   I would say remove it. Interested parties can write their own article on the geopolitical implications of the rare earth metals. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

    Removed. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Production, first paragraph: Clarify "radioactive substances" that are being released. Are these just Thorium as shown in the diagram?

   Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

   Production, third paragraph: NdFeB magnets are used in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)... Why are all of these applications provided with abbreviations even though they are never mentioned again later in the article? The most egregious of these is "hereinafter referred to as xEVs".

   rmved abbreviations. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

   Applications: Starting off with a list is awkward. Consider rewriting this as prose or providing a lead-in sentence to clarify why these particular uses are being listed.

   I'm not sure what to do with this lol. I put a very short lead sentence that doesn't really add anything new. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   That's fine. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   "Lodders 2003" is broken. Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.) in the bibliography is not cited directly anywhere in the article. Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements is cited, but not with sfn, so either remove the entry in the bibliography or the named reference in References.

   Removed entry in the bibliography. (I think I added it when I didn't know what a bibliography was for, when I just started editing Wikipedia) ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   The other items in the bibliography either have to be removed or renamed as "further reading", because there's no indication of relevance to Nd. Reconrabbit 15:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   Reading more in-depth here, there are a few citations that should have been Sfn formatted but are just plain text. I highly recommend going over these and changing the way they are displayed (either add back the bibliography or just turn these into standard citations with page numbers): Emsley, pp.120-5 and all instances of Greenwood and Earnshaw

   Fixed all the sfn stuff. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Great work. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   B. 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):

   There are still two present "citation needed" tags. I've added additional maintenance templates. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   I've gone through as much as I can - I can't find any reference for the remaining [citation needed] tag, and don't know what to do about the [clarification needed] tag in "Biological role and precautions". ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   It seems hard to believe that there are no sources on the formation of neodymium hydroxide, but the page on that doesn't give the best sources either. If this is not a particularly important compound of Nd, I would remove the statement; otherwise, use the citation on the page and indicate that it forms in ammonia water as stated. As for the clarification - my question here is what is meant by "effective". Maybe it would be better to state that neodymium is among the lanthanides found to have a biological role in these bacteria. Reconrabbit 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Well, for the [citation needed] tag I just noticed that I could've used the citation used in the halogen bit. For the clarification, I have removed the "effective" part and just stated that neodymium has a biological role in the bacteria. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   Source spot check (~20%) based on this revision:

   • [8] Y  · [11] Y  · [25] Y  · [21] Y Reference is identical to [22].
   • [20] Y Source only confirms the 0 state for Nd; +2 and +4 are mentioned only in the context of samarium, ytterbium, cerium and europium.

   On checking this is the same source as [4]; it only refers to the 0 oxidation state. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [10] Y Source is a press release and does not discuss Nd permanent magnets. A better source is guaranteed to exist.

   Added a better source. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [31] Y The page number isn't right here - should be 100?

   Changed the page to 100. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [41] Y This decribes fractional crystallization but does not describe the preceding information about glass.

   I think it is just referring to Early neodymium glasses made in the 1930s have a more reddish or orange tinge than modern versions, which are more cleanly purple, because of the difficulties in removing traces of praseodymium using early technology, namely fractional crystallization, not the rest. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   Then shouldn't there be a citation for "early neodymium glasses have a more reddish or orange tinge"? I can't find any reference to this in the text unless it's in a different chapter. Reconrabbit 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

   What? I don't understand your comment. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   I cannot find where this source supports "Early neodymium glasses made in the 1930s have a more reddish or orange tinge than modern versions".

   Shall I find a source that supports this? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Please do. If there isn't a source, only include the information supported by the current source. Reconrabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Well, I couldn't find any sources about it. What shall I remove? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Since this writing doesn't point to the impurities developing any particular colors in the glass, the best thing to do with what you have is to write on how early methods of separating the lanthanides depended on fractional crystallization, which did not allow for the isolation of high-purity neodymium until the aforementioned ion exchange methods were developed after World War II. Reconrabbit 18:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Do you think Early methods of separating the lanthanides depended on fractional crystallization, which did not allow for the isolation of high-purity neodymium until the aforementioned ion exchange methods were developed after World War II. (what you put in the comment above) would work? (I'm not very sure what to put). ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

   If you think that's a good enough revision, then please use that. Reconrabbit 20:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

   Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 06:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [43] N No mention of "eight million tonnes" or any figure for global Nd reserves.

   I can't find another source that mentions this - shall I remove this? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   I would remove it. You already have the relative abundance from the CRC Handbook. Reconrabbit 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Removed. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [45] Y but doesn't confirm that lanthanides are "more abundant in the Earth's crust" in the third usage, Y unless it's referring to the brief section on the rare earths?

   I don't understand your comment - can you clarify please? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   Is the quantity of lanthanides in this source being used to support the claim "The lanthanides are not usually found in space"? Reconrabbit 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   I think so. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [46] Y Refers to only "chief ores", not "space" or "crust abundance". Maybe best to use this only for the "in the crust" section.

   Removed in the space section, left in the crust section. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [48] Y
   • [49] Y
   • [52] N No mention is made of the coloration of minerals. This only describes neodymium in glass.

   Well, I can't access this source. Shall I find another? ¹⁴¹Pr -_\contribs/- 17:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [53] Y
   • [54] Y Text does not directly mention the Paris Agreement, but all other attributed content is acceptable.
   • [57] N Source states the opposite of what is claimed - "Samarium-cobalt magnets corroded quickly within 24 hours", and the article says "neodymium-based magnets lose their magnetism at lower temperatures[55] and tend to corrode,[56] while samarium–cobalt magnets do not."
   • [62] Y While it does support the text, there has to be a better source than a website that has "Add to Basket" as the first thing you see.

   Couldn't find any better sources. ¹⁴¹Pr -_\contribs/- 17:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

   • [65] Y  · [74] Y

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Substitute for uranyl acetate is copied straight out of [1]. This is less severe because it's published under CC BY 4.0, I think, but attribution needs to be indicated.

   I'll sort it later. In the meantime, can you give me an example of suitable attribution? Or, shall I just remove te section? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   Use Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice to indicate it. Usually it's placed at the end of the references section. Reconrabbit 15:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    Done. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I see that this follows MOS:CHEM and the structure of Praseodymium, which is helpful for comparison. I recommend turning Isotopes into its own section.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Concerns here are listed in criteria 1B. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Is "Marks Brothers" as mentioned on the Talk page relevant, or just manufacturer spam that had gotten onto the page briefly?

   It's not relevant any more, I added it when I was a rookie. 😅 ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   Just noticed an invisible comment regarding the year of discovery being inaccurate. Probably best to delete this as no other source on the internet corroborates it. [2] Reconrabbit 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The photo of Carl Auer von Welsbach has a vague caption that could be interpreted to mean that the photo of him was taken in 1885, not that he discovered neodymium in 1885.

    Done Made clearer. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   The image File:YAG2.svg at the end uses Dutch text. Up to you if this is an issue in interpretability.

   I don't see any dutch here. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   The "Pomp" text in the excitation. I'm more concerned that the energy level diagram may be hard to interpret for a wide base of readers without explanation. (Sorry, I forgot to finish my sentence.) Reconrabbit 13:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   So what do you want me to do with the diagram? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

   It's out of scope for this review - it shouldn't be an issue, but I'm still going to make a note of it here. Reconrabbit 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

   There is a MOS:SANDWICH issue under Occurence with Bastnäsite and the photo of von Welsbach. Reconrabbit 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   I don't see any sandwiching going on, can you clarify further please? ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   My bad, it's only an issue if the window is stretched out very far horizontally. Reconrabbit 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.