Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yttrium

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:40, 17 September 2008 [1].

---

Yttrium

Nominator(s): mav (talk), Nergaal, and WikiProject Elements

Self-nom. I de-stubbed this article back in late 2002 and expanded it again in early August from 1250 words to 2400 words. Since then, other members of WikiProject Elements; Cryptic C62, Stone, Itub, and Nergaal have expanded, cited, organized and copyedited the article to its current state and size (2800 words). Along the way Nergaal nominated this for GAN and we all worked together to get the article there. I'm now very happy with the article and think it is one of the best examples of element articles of its type; Yttrium is between the FAs Francium and Xenon in its scope and amount that can be said about the element. I support this article as a nominator. Is this ready for FA yet? If not, what else is needed or needs to be fixed? mav (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I wish to co-nominate this article as I feel that it has demonstrated Featured Article criteria. The creators and editors of this article have done their job and more. Wii Wiki (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support but I don't think co-nominations work that way. --mav (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, see I'm kind of new to the nomination process, and heard smething about that. Oh well. Thanks for the help! Wii Wiki (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per lack of amusing nomination statement. Image comments:
  • Image:Mira 1997.jpg is sort of unclear and doesn't really add much to the article, but that's just my two cents.
  • Image:Johan Gadolin.jpg is claimed under public domain, but author is not stated.
  • all other images are free, have author, source, and license information. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Heh :) Mira simply represents the type of red giant star that yttrium is synthesized in. I re-edited the caption to make that clear. According to the image description page for Johan Gadolin.jpg, the author is unknown. --mav (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • As in, the book had no information on it, or nobody went searching for it? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd say the author is irrelevant to the copyright status when the work is that old. We don't know exactly who wrote the Bible either, and yet it is in the public domain. ;-) The authors of the book are Johan Gadolin, Edvard Hjelt, and Robert Tigerstedt. (Maybe the first author is a son?) I haven't checked the book myself, but my experience is that these "in memoriam" books often didn't mention the authors of the portraits. --Itub (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I found another clue regarding this portrait: [2] Still no info about the author, but apparently Gadolin was 19 at the time (that was around 1779), and "it is likely that this portrait was painted to ease his mother's heartache when her oldest surviving child first left home. There are no other surviving portraits or photographs". --Itub (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Humor me and add that defense to the image description page (and get a info template in there to cleanup the page as well) and then my comments are taken care of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
              • /me brings on the humor. :) Note added to description page on Commons. --mav (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• 'K, images taken care of then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia I happened to see your nomination the instant it went up, so I gave it a quick copyedit. You did a good job taking care of piddly MOS issues (especially nonbreaking spaces). There is one thing I fixed at Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area that you didn't seem to catch here: {{harvnb}} outputs a space in 'p. 1', but your manually typed references were in the format 'p.1'. I fixed that spacing here also, since I was already copyediting. A couple remaining issues:

• Ideally, a paragraph should not consist of only a single sentence.
• The second half of this sentence doesn't flow from the first half: "The chemical similarity of yttrium with the lanthanoids leads it to being enriched by the same processes and ends up in ores containing rare earth minerals."
  • Changed the sentence to: The chemical similarity of yttrium with the lanthanoids leads it to being enriched by the same processes and ends up in ores containing lanthanoids, forming rare earth minerals. Better now?
• The infobox needs (1) nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure, and (2) commas in large numbers. Seeing as it's all hardcoded (and in a million subtemplates), I'm hesitant to mess with it myself.

Thanks for an interesting read. Maralia (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your edits and suggestions for improvement! I'll make sure to address the first two. As for the third; I agree but that is a larger WikiProject Elements issue that effects all articles. I won't know if this is easily fixable until I dive in (which I'm not looking forward to due to the complexity of the template system used). --mav (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://EnvironmentalChemistry.com/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be substitutable by nubas Audi reference.--Stone (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

EnvironmentalChemistry.com replaced by a more reliable source. --mav (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I helped a bit with what I could in terms of fact-checking and copy editing, and I think the article is ready. --Itub (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support (CoI - I did the GA review) Improved since GA, even has an image of the TV phosphors. It is my opinion that it meets all the FA criteria, and is actually an interesting read for an element article (: jimfbleak (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support A fascinating, clear & concise article on an element I must admit I knew next to nothing about. I've made a few stylistic changes to the lead section (in particular removing the awkward phrase that is, which occurred twice in the first two sentences). I hope you agree that it now reads more fluently. Good luck. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• comment - "Selected isotopes" in the infobox appears to be WP:POV, the reason for selection/exclusion needs stated Fasach Nua (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

POV? Hardly!

• Consistency: Every element's infobox displays the stable/naturally occurring isotopes as well as the most stable synthetic ones.
• Explanation: Hardly even needed, seeing how easy it is figure out why each isotope was included, but found at WP:ELEMENTS.
• Aesthetics: It would be ugly to include all of the isotopes, and uglier still to try to cram an explanation of the selection into the infobox.
• Redundancy: The infobox links to isotopes of yttrium, the article links to isotopes of yttrium, and the Isotopes section discusses more than just the isotopes within the infobox.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose I dont consider WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS a valid reason for doing something, It should not be the roll of the reader to "figure out" content, encylopedic content is more important that asthetics & I think an article should be able to stand on its own merits Fasach Nua (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

lol! I invite you to make a better selection of isotopes =)) Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My list is ⁷⁷Y, ⁸²Y, ⁸⁸Y, and ¹⁰⁸Y. Is it better selection? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the infobox (or rather, everything in the article) is "selected information". It is called editorial discretion (something we cannot avoid as long as we have human editors), not "POV". The reason for opposition is ridiculous IMHO. --Itub (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your statment I think an article should be able to stand on its own merits correctly, than no Germanium compounds and Isotopes of germanium articles would be necessary, because everything has to be in the main article. If you please try this trick on the article physics which also does not show the whole picture of physics. To select something out of the Isotopes of germanium article to present it in ther germanium article makes only sense if it is a selection not the whole already existing article. --Stone (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where you say germanium you really meant yttrium, right? ;-) --Itub (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Right, I mixed it up, but the statment stays the same and is good for all FA elements.--Stone (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Throughout Wikiproject Elements' 10 FACs, 11 GANs, and 3 FARCs that have been successful (and various unsuccessful ones), no one has ever brought up the infobox's isotope selection as an issue. The point of FAC is to determine if there is consensus in the community that an article meets the FA standards. There is already an overwhelming consensus, which extends far beyond the WP:ELEMENTS crowd, that what you are discussing is a non-issue. Furthermore, as is also true with synopsis lengths (see Candide's FAC), the selected isotopes could be cause for edit warring and debate if inexperienced editors try to change it without thinking. But that doesn't happen, because after years of trial and error, we have already established what we believe is the best possible way to present this sort of information, a process which does not extend to include this pointless discussion. Fasach, as with anyone and everyone, you are more than welcome to critique any and all of our work so long as the ultimate goal is to make it better. However, the time has come to save some face, stop citing irrelevant policy pages instead of making real arguments, drop this non-issue, and move on to more legitimate concerns. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For me "years of trial and error" seems more like WP:Original research, than content backed up by an independent verifiable source. If an article states that something is selected, it is not unreasonable to know by whom it was selected and why. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil response removed to talk page; please respect WP:CIVIL at FAC. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked, there seems to be more images on the right hand side towards the end, these could be staggered left and right to balance the page, per MOS:IMAGES#Images. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --mav (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Fasach Nua: I think the problem is that the name and original intent of that part of the table was to list the 'Most stable isotopes'. And that is exactly what the mini-list is doing. I never much liked the change of title for that part of the table. Would a title change make this clear? --mav (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A list of most stable isotopes would be fine, a list of most abundent isotopes would be fine, a list of naturally occuring isotopes would be fine, a list of most unstable isotopes would be fine, but a list of "selected" isotopes screams POV Fasach Nua (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox sub-header changed to 'Most-stable isotopes'. --mav (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Status, unclear status on both images and reliable sourcing concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image concern about Mira fixed per above. The other image concern was already addressed by Stone (PD status is assured given age and description page says the author is unknown per the scan source). We have been using EnvironmentalChemistry.com as a reference for years now. It has proved to be a good source for isotope data in the body of element articles. But I'll see if the standard reference used for the selected isotopes section in the table and "Isotopes of..." articles can be used instead. However, that reference is not accessible on-line; meaning verifiability will be harder. --mav (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, EnvironmentalChemistry.com requires its writers to have "post graduate degree... in the environmental, chemistry, hazardous materials or health and safety related fields." Is that enough given the uncontroversial nature of the data? --mav (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Since Ealdgyth is tied up with a hurricane, I'll respond. Having post-graduate degrees doesn't indicate compliance with our policies at WP:V or WP:SPS; please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for tips on how to respond to sourcing queries. I'm not certain it would qualify as a reliable source; that could better be sorted by posting to WP:RSN. On the other hand, it's not sourcing paricularly controversial material (couldn't that easily be sourced anywhere?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Environmentalchemistry.com, like webelements.com, is a very good periodic table website. However, I don't think we should cite such websites as sources when all the information contained there can be sourced more directly from textbooks or from the scientific literature. In this case the information is about isotopes, so it should be possible to use nubase instead like Stone suggested. --Itub 06:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Eureka! I found two very good sources that should completely replace EnvironmentalChemistry.com: NuDat, published by the National Nuclear Data Center of Brookhaven National Laboratory (half life and decay mode) and the less pretty but no less useful Exploring the Table of Isotopes (metastable info) published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. I'll confirm the info in the article and switch over the sources as needed. Note to self: WikiProject Elements needs to create a central repository of trusted sources with commentary on what they can and can't be used for. -- mav (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Switch to NNDC from EC complete. --mav (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, with a couple of comments: on checking the sources I saw that the DOI for ref. 42 is inactive, but I found the abstract here [3] and could ref 30, (Encyclopaedia Britannica) have more detail? Thanks for an engaging article. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reported broken doi to CrossRef and wait for answer!--Stone (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.