Talk:Thulium

Thulium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 31, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Rather nice neutron reflector[edit]

Properties as a neutron reflector approach that of Be when thick. Hansen, Paxton, and Wood (1958). Critical Masses of Oralloy in Thin Reflectors (LA-2203) (PDF). Los Alamos National Laboratory.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

This seems to correspond to Hardtack II testing of various Oralloy tactical weapons. 97.127.182.235 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: King jakob c 2 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

For criterion 1B: The lead section is far too short for an article of this length. I'd recommend that it be about twice as long, maybe.
For criterion 2B: What is the evidence that chemicool.com and whatever this is are reliable? (All the other sources look reliable).
For criterion 3A: The article is slightly on the short side (especially the occurrence, production, and biological role sections). However, this is not an FA nomination and I understand that the rare earth elements are often rather obscure, so I won't hold back the nomination for this.
For criterion 6A: I am a bit curious as to why we have an image with a non-commercial license on the article, but it's also a Featured Picture, so I'm probably missing something.

That's all. Thank you for nominating. ^King Jakob _C2 16:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The GA review has now been passed. Thanks for all your work on it. ^King Jakob _C2 11:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Well written
- The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  - Better now? Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah. ^King Jakob _C2 16:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable with no original research
- It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
- It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  - Chemicool is ref'd by reliable sources. When I have time I will check which of those original sources can fit in better. The second one is more sketchy. I will try to find the original source behind this info, as it certainly looks like legitimate info. Doing... Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's been removed now. ^King Jakob _C2 11:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage
- It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  - Tm doesn't have nearly as much to talk about as Yb, eh? :-) Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - (I'm actually serious) Double sharp (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail .
  - I'm not so sure about this now. I read the first paragraph and I'm already confused. TL The Legend (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images
- Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  - Not a problem per multi-licensing. Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Incidentally, I'm certainly not going to sillily follow the lede here and edit the Er and Ho articles' ledes to call them the preantepenultimate and propreantepenultimate lanthanides! Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or call Dy the suprapropreantepenultimate lanthanide. Or Tb the ultrasuprapropreantepenultimate lanthanide! TL The Legend (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the chemical properties section- GA seems optimistic[edit]

There are a few odd statements which stand out. e.g.

+4 valence states-- presumably that means +4 oxidation state/number- and where did the +4 come from?!

Thulium(II) compounds include thulium halides- which halides? - certainly not F!

Some very lightweight web references, and no heavyweight chemistry textbooks- e.g. Greenwood, Wiberg, Housecroft, no specialist books - e.g. Cotton , Atwood. Unreferenced wide ranging statement "Thulium reacts with various metallic and non-metallic elements forming a range of binary compounds, including TmN, TmS, TmC2, Tm2C3, TmH2, TmH3, TmSi2, TmGe3, TmB4, TmB6 and TmB12."

Axiosaurus (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking back at it from five years' difference I definitely agree. I'll get Tb done properly and meanwhile come back and fix this one. Double sharp (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check dates[edit]

In all three places where a discovery date is mentioned (lede, box, and history), it says 1879, but in the Thulium(III) oxide article, the date is given as 1878. I'm going to put a similar note on that page.

WesT (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it a while ago IIRC for Timeline of chemical element discoveries; it is 1879. I'll correct it on the other page. Double sharp (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who did the 15,000 recrystallizations of thulium bromate to obtain pure thulium?[edit]

Article Theodore William Richards cites John Emsley's book that says it was Richards who did this. Emsley p. 443: "In 1911, the American chemist Theodore William Richards performed 15 000 recrystallizations of thulium bromate in order to obtain a pure sample of the element and so determine exactly its atomic weight." The present article says it was Charles James and uses his 1911 paper as (primary) source. What is the correct story? I think this is a mistake in Emsley's work as the Thulium I paper mentions the operation count 15 000. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a serious question, but the way the section heading is worded makes me laugh. It sounds like the 15,000 recrystallizations of thulium bromated someone in order to obtain pure thulium. Poor guy. – Corinne (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nice[edit]

nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:FA36:9C00:CD7F:E15C:515A:52F9 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you joking in wiki Abab9579 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]