Wikipedia:Peer review/Chromium/archive1

Chromium

There has been a whole lot of work done on the Chromium article to get it prepared to become a Featured Article Candidate, and there is still a whole lot more work that needs to be accomplished. Many of the frequent editors have a good idea about the direction that this article needs to follow to get it to FAC, but we would love to hear the opinions of other editors about what work still needs to be done here.

Thanks, UtopianPoyzin (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

R8R

Before we begin, I'd like to suggest you separate the part on occurrence into its own section: a proper discussion on occurrence will include a talk on chromium in space, and that deserves a subsection of its own. Also, it would allow you to focus this section on physical properties, for which you need three subsections: a subsection on atomic properties (nano-scale properties defined by the electron shell), bulk (macro-scale) properties, and isotopes (nuclear properties). See Lead#Physical properties for an example of how that would work. Also, passivation is a chemical process, and if it deserves a dedicated subsection, it should be located in the section of chemical properties, even though you can obviously mention it in the preceding section on physical properties (probably in the subsection on bulk properties).

During the point in which I restructured the article headings, I attempted to stylize the article off of Titanium and Zinc, the closest FAs in atomic number to the right and left of Chromium, which both had "Occurrence" as a subheading of characteristics. Is there a standard chemical element article structure that FAs should follow? I will change it now, but then shouldn't Titanium and Zinc require a heading on occurrence rather than a subheading? This is what you mean, correct? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether there should be a universal FA structure is up for debate, but no such structure is set in stone, that's for certain. I know there once was a draft structure that was used to de-stub articles on elements before I joined the project, but I think editors rather came up with it to make the routine basic work easy rather than set a standard to be followed ever after. If there should be a universal structure (for most but not all articles, as articles on many radioactive elements certainly should be different), I would propose the one I used in lead. I spent some time to figure what a perfect structure should be. I concluded an article should start with a section on physical (most basic) properties; that material would be useful in describing chemical properties, which should come next; then follows occurrence, which is easier to understand now that the reader is briefly acquainted with physics and chemistry of the element; the knowledge on occurrence and properties will be helpful in describing the element's history as it can be linked to this knowledge; then comes a detailed description of present-day production process and then modern applications (both complimented by knowledge of history and properties); and the article is concluded with sections on biological and environmental effects, which are, too, easier to understand after the reader has learned about the element's chemistry, production, and applications.

I think both titanium and zinc can have it their own way as there is no singular standard as of now, but if I were to write these articles anew, Occurrence would be a separate section as the structure I suggested above is the best I can think of.

Most articles on elements are actually very similar. Sure, they differ in some nuances, but the main story is surprisingly similar. I would recommend trying to look after the most recent FAs rather than the most similar as the requirements to pass an FAC grow ever higher and that's more useful to have in mind (of course, you can look at the more similar elements when it comes to those nuances, but most of story doesn't need that uniqueness). Apart from lead, you can also check out thorium and fluorine (alas, there haven't been many FAs on (near-)stable elements in the last few years); aluminium is getting shape and I think most of its sections are well done and only the first two and well as the lead section are left by now (and when they are done, the article will be a contender for the FA status).--R8R (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Remark on lead

I will probably often refer to lead as to an example of how things can/should be done. This is my most recent FA so far, and it exemplifies what kind of an article I could write. My articles have previously been described as informative and easy to read by readers, so that should be a good thing. Also, not only is it an FA, but it has also been published in Wikipedia's own journal (which means it underwent an even tougher review than FAC, and the review was really helpful). I suggest you give the article a read; most sections could be rewritten following analogous sections in it as an example. As I review the article, I will try to explain what exactly that means for this particular article.--R8R (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that lead is a very well written article, nice job! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Physical

My best general advice I can give you is: always think about your reader. Imagine what kind of information your reader would want from this article. If something is unclear to you, then it will certainly be unclear to some readers, so you will certainly go good by finding out whatever was unclear to you and explaining it in the article, possibly in a note rather than the main text.

Also, speaking of notes: while you are not required to use them, don't be afraid to do so as they can be really beneficial to your writing. For instance, check notes in lead: that's how it can work, adding both interesting facts to your story or explaining the ones you already have.

Another piece of advice: more is fine as long as it's not in the final version. If you are unsure whether something is important enough to be added in the article, go ahead and add it for now; you'll see if you need it later. If the section is obviously too long, you can copy its contents to a subarticle, which will make the job of trimming the section in the main article much easier. This is how the history of aluminium started, for instance. (Speaking of which, could you revisit the FAC?)

Okay @R8R:, sorry for the delay. I am going into your review blind, and I believe I am able to bring the article to match your suggestions as we move along. So, about the history of aluminium, was there still any comments that you left standing for me to read? Last I checked, you reached all of my points I believe. I'll revisit the article once I finish with this. Forgive me for my lateness. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to revisit it now. While we are not really time-limited here at the PR (the PR for thorium lasted eight (!!) months and of these, it was mostly stale for six of them), an FAC is not explicitly said to, but sort of supposed to, last a month or a little longer, and this FAC is at 1 month, 22 days now. (Of course, an FAC is prolonged if there is enough action going on in it.) I'd like to get explicit support from you and I'd be very sorry if an FAC coordinator grew weary of waiting for any action there and closed it before it got enough support.

You said I could provide "some insight on the creation of the Hall–Héroult process," and I didn't understand what exactly that could be. Other than that, all your comments seem to have been resolved.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I pulled the "big dumb" and didn't do anything about the article for a while, but I got the atomic section finished. Hopefully I can continue the trend in the future. I didn't realize that there were certain time restraints, so I'll make sure I keep at this article on a steady pace. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is caused from the partial stability of a half-filled subshell -- I knew this wasn't the case but it took me a couple of hours of lurking to find out how so and here's what I found. This gives a good impression of what's going on here. Also here's a good Stack Exchange answer I found. More comments later.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Also you may want to take a look at this for some context.--R8R (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

THANK you, I was looking for a source that could say that same thing. I was aware that the 4s was at a lower energy level than 3d was, but I couldn't find how to suitably back it up. I'll add these sources in. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not like 3d is higher than 4s. As is, the statement is only correct for K and Ca; for Cr, the situation is not only reversed, it's a little more complex than even that. Essentially, Cr⁶⁺ is [Ar]; then Cr⁵⁺ is [Ar]3d¹, ..., Cr⁺ is [Ar]3d⁵, and finally Cr is [Ar]3d⁵4s¹. The last electron didn't go to the 3d level to form [Ar]3d⁶ because the area at the third orbital was getting too populated and the electrons in it repel each other, so one moved further away but not away from the atom altogether because the electrons is still attracted by the nucleus and the balance for that last electron is the 4s orbital. For most transition elements, the balance is to repel the last two electrons to the ns orbital, rather than one like chromium or copper. Give the links I provided a closer look.--R8R (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Also Stack Exchange is a good place to get your directions for further research but it is not a reliable source so please don't refer to it in the article.--R8R (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I made some general edits in the atomic/bulk areas, as well as in a few oxidation state sections. Feel free to give them a look. Still am struggling to formulate a reasonable, condensed version of the electron configuration of chromium. Should have at least something by tomorrow. I worked around that and did different types of edits. I also want to find a way to incorporate the isolobal principle into the explanation for the 4s/3d energy, because that was the way I best understood what was being talked about. I just don't know how to reiterate... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The stated explanation that 3d⁵4s is more stable becaue of the half-filled 3d subshell is pretty lame, since most of the anomalies (look at the 4d metals) do not create a half- or fully-filled subshell. Tungsten is 5d⁴6s², for instance (probably due to relativistic stabilisation of 6s); niobium is 4d⁴5s, which isn't half-filled. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph to give a better explanation of what is going on. I am rather enjoying being back at this, so probably we will soon see a rewrite of the chemistry sections by yours truly. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

What I see at the present moment is a good change from what once was there, but I still think it could use more improvement. For example, from what I read, I still don't understand: if the gap is so small it is easy to overcome, you still need to overcome it, right? Furthermore, the 3d orbital experiences more repulsion... furthermore? isn't this the reason for the promotion in the first place?--R8R (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I've tried to make this clearer by moving some stuff around. Double sharp (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that seems better. However, now it looks like a general talk on why d elements have s electrons and that's too broad a topic to be covered here. I'd rather love to have an explanation on why Cr violates Aufbau or, if the explanation proves to be too complicated, at least a hint on what's involved here.--R8R (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick note: the plural form of "μm" is still "μm." This is a symbol, not a word, so it does not need pluralization. The same is certainly true for all metric units and IIRC for all U.S. customary units as well (I've seen "lbs" but that's incorrect).--R8R (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... I really didn't know how to suitably word that; Sorry about my first phrasing. That being said, I still think that referencing photoemission spectroscopy and PES diagrams to support the claim would be rather useful, (or at least a picture of one on the side) to demonstrate the sinking of the electron shell. What are your thoughts? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A picture may be useful (but not essential), but that's enough. Our encyclopedia articles are meant to be overview articles and rather list facts than prove them. (Compare encyclopedias to popular science, which does aim to explain to common people how knowledge was obtained.) We are meant to be backed by reliable sources and we should only provide this backing directly if it is of some special interest itself (for example, historical). On the other hand, we are free in our presentation of facts. I often provide context to some knowledge that isn't likely to be understood by most people as is.--R8R (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Could not find a suitable picture on Wikimedia to go along with the PES claim, but it'll be fine. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's get to the section now. You essentially need to write this anew (let's deal with the Isotopes part later) as you only have two sentences. It is better to start off with atomic properties as it is macro properties that are defined by the atomic ones, not vice versa. (You could continue this line of thinking by saying that most properties are defined by the 24-electron shell, which has precisely 24 electrons because the nucleus has 24 protons and thus the section should begin with a subsection on Isotopes, but it's up to you. Unlike the electron shell properties, which are easy to link to the macro properties, I haven't found a way to naturally interlink the nuclear and the electron shell properties (apart from the fact there are both 24 protons and electrons), and interlinking is the best thing in an article, when a reader gets there is A, and then B follows from A, and then С follows from A and B, etc.; you may remember I recommended a section order based on this as well.)

Okay, I believe I know what I'm doing. I added in the subheadings as inline comments for the article, so I will reinstate them now. Should I use new research for the "Atomic" section, or do you recommend I scrap EVERYTHING and redo the research from scratch as well. I can do whatever you feel is necessary; how large is the call to action?

I didn't understand this question but I've got something to say that I believe will answer it. You shouldn't delete information unless you explicitly figure out it is redundant or not really related (which you usually do after you have all the information you do need) but you shouldn't feel bound to what you already have, either. Plan as if you were to write anew but implement the plan by adding to what you already have. This is a very large call for action.

If I haven't answered your question, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

So given that, your section should start with a talk on the atom, something like "A chromium atom has 24 electrons arranged in the electron configuration [Ar]3d⁵4s¹." This configuration is one of the most iconic exceptions to the Aufbau principle, so you should mention that and explain why it is the case. The usual explanation is that the half-filled subshell is somehow more stable, but here's a rebuke to that. What immediately follows from that configuration? For lead, it was the relativistic effects; for chromium, it is the fact that the element is located in the first transition series. In turn, that leads to.. well, that's up to you. For instance, lead's most notable characteristic is its density, that's what the element is best known for with most people. Chromium's, perhaps, is its shininess. Explain why the metal is so shiny. See Relativistic quantum chemistry#Color of gold and caesium for how a similar question is treated. Another implication must be the magnetic order, which you can now mention on the atomic scale and set stage for the macro scale magnetic properties. Probably you could talk about the unit cell of chromium. Maybe you could mention that the metallic bonding in chromium is provided by three electrons. You could mention that the atomic and ionic radii contract throughout the 3d series. I suggest you start off with something of your choice and see how it works.

Okay, I wish I was able to suitably comment on each individual aspect of your suggestion, but I'll piece it apart and address everything the best I can.

• Is is necessary that I explicitly state the electron configuration in the passage itself? I am aware that it is listed in the infobox, and repeating the configuration could appear redundant to some. I will make a point to include why the configuration is the way it is, with chromium establishing a half full subshell at 3d by pulling an electron away from the 4s subshell into the 3d subshell to achieve the lowest energy state. I would then talk briefly about HOW [Ar]3d⁵4s¹ results in the lowest possible energy state of the atom rather than [Ar]3d⁴4s², which is the configuration that would have been expected if one followed the pattern of electron configurations up until this point.
  • Yes, absolutely. You're going to talk about electrons in a chromium atom, so their arrangement is a necessary part of this discussion as it affects chromium's properties. Don't mind the infobox: an infobox holds a secondary meaning to an article, not vice versa. More than that, an infobox is meant to redundant as it is supposed to summarize main points of the article's subject for those who don't have the time to read the entire article (see WP:INFOBOX for details).
  • What you described sounds like a good way to go. I just wanted to say you shouldn't stop at "a half-filled shell is magically more stable, period."--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• I do remember that I was able to find a very helpful source that detailed chromium's specular reflection, which is what I consider to be chromium's most notable characteristic. This is exemplified through stainless steel, however this is not the section to discuss stainless steel. I included some standard information from the source in the lead, but I could most definitely refer back to the same source to use in the "Atomic" section.
  • If you do manage to find the mentioned useful source, please leave a link so I could see it, too. Maybe this discussion could leave to further interesting additions.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• There is information about the magnetism properties of Chromium, so I could probably develop what is currently there, along with adding new information about magnetism properties besides the discussion of antiferro/ferromagnetism.
  • Have in mind, though, that your discussion shouldn't bee too long in the end. On the other hand, you're free to add as much as you want now, and if it's too long, we'll see what is best relocated to notes or removed altogether.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I'm not too familiar about the topic of crystallization structure and unit cells. I'll be sure to look into it though!
  • Please do. You won't need too much of it here, just some very basics, so it won't be particularly problematic.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'll be sure to add metallic bonding information here as well. I do believe there may be inferences about metallic bonding in the article, but if there is, it is few and far between. I'll compile all the information I can find, if it exists in the article. I would assume that it wouldn't be that hard to find information about chromium bonding elsewhere besides Wikipedia.
  • I'd like to repeat not to be afraid of being too wordy when doing so.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yup, I did mention a bit above that I will be talking about the 3d ionic radii contraction. Even if it doesn't involve chromium at all, the fact that an electron in the 4s subshell would be removed before a 3d electron in the case of ionization does effect the electron configuration that chromium has, so I will include some information there. Still not good with crystal chemistry though...
  • All plans you laid out here sound good. Very curious to see what they will yield.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

On that note, wow. I spent 40 minutes going over the areas of focus you suggested to me. Well then. Looks like I probably will not be able to cover this tonight. On the bright side, I now listed out the recommended amount of coverage I should give each topic on the atomic structure of Chromium when I right the subsection tomorrow. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(Why I don't give direct suggestions and rather leave something up to you is because I've learned to think that everyone should be allowed to write in their own style, rather than uniform. That is why we have WP:ENGVAR, for instance. This is also why I suggested we don't re-structure titanium and zinc even though I find their structures worthy of some improvement.)--R8R (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don't have an immediate recipe for success or else my own writing would be done in fewer edits. But as it often happens, it's best to try everything you find worthy of trying and then leave the best. It's also engaging once you get to do it. That was why I suggested different things for the Atomic subsection. I probably will continue this fashion later. The article is not (yet) in a near-FA state when you already have the text and have now to polish it by adding small missing parts and removing superfluous ones (probably save for the biological sections); we (well, you, unless you ask for direct help) have yet to write the text.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait, do not worry. I have been reading these comments. I just won't be able to change anything until the weekend when I have a significant amount of time to do so. For some reason I chose not to respond, and that probably wasn't the greatest idea. Sorry about my absence. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It will be great if you add suggested improvements (or discuss them if you're not sure about my suggestions) as I go because that will make refining the article much easier and it will be easier to improve the article section after section.--R8R (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I've given it some more thought and decided it could be great to mention chromium's shininess in the section on chemistry even though it's a physical phenomenon: all metals are shiny (we can describe why that is in one phrase and leave a suggestion to the reader to read an external source if they want to know more) and it's chromium's passivation that helps preserve that shininess. I, however, am faced with the question: why is chromium (like aluminum) shiny even after passivation but lead isn't? We definitely should figure it out and see from there.

The section on bulk properties probably doesn't need much commentary. Lead#Bulk is great and you'll do fine by just copying it. Maybe you only need to mention magnetism as well since the article claims it is remarkable (for which you should pave the road in the Atomic subsection).

I've come to think this does need some commentary. A section on bulk properties, rather than tells a story, lists available facts. I suggest you start with a brief description of bulk chromium's appearance (something like "silvery in color, lustrous and highly reflective") and name (only name) a few quantitative characteristic properties in an introductory paragraph and then proceed to list the quantities. Of these, only the melting point, the boiling point, and density will be somewhat understood by most readers (if at all), so you'll do good by providing values for other common metals for comparison. On the other hand, you need to not only please common readers but also those who work with metals (like engineers or material scientists), so you'll need some other properties as well; again, see Lead#Bulk for a list of suggestions. You can look for exact values in a handbook; on this note, I'd like to reiterate my offer to send you a few books: send me an address to send the books to by visiting my user page and clicking "email this user" in the panel on the left under the Wikipedia logo.--R8R (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The subsection on isotopes claims that there are three stable isotopes while the infobox says there are four. Which one do I believe?

(More on the Isotopes subsection later.)--R8R (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Cr-50 stable or not? The present state of the article doesn't let me make a definite conclusion. Either way, it is certainly stable for any practical purpose, so you should group it with the stable isotopes. The only difference would be that if it is actually radioactive (i.e., it has been observed to decay) you'd say chromium is composed of four isotopes but only three of these are truly stable and one is practically stable but actually decay with an extraordinarily long half-life and the most stable radioactive isotope other than Cr-50 is ... If Cr-50 has only been theorized but not observed to decay, you should say there are four observationally stable isotopes but one of these may actually decay with these characteristics of the decay. More soon, hopefully tonight.--R8R (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with R8R; ⁵⁰Cr should be indicated as stable until a paper measuring its radioactivity is published, and even if it should be listed as (theoretically) unstable, it should not be in the same sentence as ⁵¹Cr which is synthetic and has a half-life at least 19 orders of magnitude shorter. ComplexRational (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The first and the third paragraphs certainly should be merged.--R8R (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Chemical

At best, you should have an idea of what your result is going to look like before you start. If you're not sure, it's fine to just go for it and try to figure out in the process, but if it is helpful to know what you're aiming for beforehand. I suggest this structure of this section: you start off with a few words on reactivity of chromium metal, then follows a subsection on inorganic compounds, divided into a subsubsection on Cr(III), a subsubsection on Cr(VI), a subsubsection that very briefly mentions other oxidation states, and an introductory text that precedes all of these (probably mostly talking about a transition metal character in those compounds), and finally a subsection on organochromium compounds. Organometallic chemistry is vastly different from usual inorganics, so it needs a separate discussion. When you describe Cr(III), for instance, try to focus not only on the compounds themselves but rather on chromium as well; first two paragraphs of the subsubsection on Cr(III) are good. The part on Cr(VI) is a little excessive; I'll talk more about that and all other aspects later. I will only note that the current introductory text on the entire section is redundant as that partially should be described in the previous section (for instance, the electron configuration) or later (you can focus on the multiple oxidation states in the part on inorganic chemistry). A subsection dedicated exclusively to passivation is excessive when you're about to have an a few paragraphs long discussion on reactivity in general, but parts of it may be used to write the said discussion.disregard this for now, this is an important topic for this particular element and we'll need to think how to describe this best rather than shoot from the hip--R8R (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment: of course, you can refer to Lead#Chemistry in case you want to see beforehand what the result with my suggestions implemented will look like. The article will work fine as an example for most other sections as well, and for those sections that won't match the analogous sections in lead (for instance, History), I will try to provide other examples to look at before you start or while you work. The stories of lead's and chromium's chemistry, despite their actual differences (for instance, lead in a main-group element, while chromium is a transition metal), are quite similar: both elements have two main oxidation states, one being more stable than the other; both passivate in the air and have more-or-less similar reactivities; both have some organometallic chemistry, and those are what makes up a section on chemistry of most metals. (A section on chemistry of, say, potassium would be much different.)--R8R (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

History

To split the discovery of the element into the pigment and element section does not reflect the reality. Even the first analysis was done in a way that it was to detect a new element and not to analyse it for the use as pigment. There is no real indication that the lead chromate was used as pigment at that time at all. --Stone (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I haven't of yet considered splitting the history of the pigment as well as the history of the element into two separate sections. What do you suggest be done about this? (i.e. new section, new subsection in an existing section, relocate to a different article, etc.) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Make it one section! The splitting does nopt reflect the reality of the history. Remove the ancient use. There is no prove of deliberate use for any other than decorative reasons. That is crystal balling.

I beg to differ. Sure, the article shouldn't make such a focus on this Terracotta Army chromium, but I would rather suggest to briefly mention the fact there was an ancient use in the text but there and explain it in detail in a note. ("Archaeologists suggest chromium may have been used in Qin China, but there are no written records of that.^{[note 1]} In 1761, crocoite was found...") I see no crystal balling in that if we stick to archaeological suggestions. Also, a use for decoration is a valid use if that is why chromium was used.--R8R (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"Archaeologists" is not mentioned in the cited source it simply says "the Chinese say". Bring a credible source that this not a invention of people with no clue. A nice publication in journal would be best.--Stone (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pleas do not cite [1] because this is a copy of the wikipedia article. --Stone (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Biological/Environmental

(This is meant to be a single header for the sections Biological role and Precautions as the whole common topic of biological/environmental properties allows for various structures, so let's see later what suits chromium best)

Lead section

(The lead section is meant to summarize the content of the article, so of course I have to take a deeper look on the content in question first)