Talk:Terbium

Terbium 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.
Review: October 5, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Archives

Archive 1

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

Untitled

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Schnee. Elementbox converted 11:35, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:23, 9 July 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Terbium. Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Material Properties

There are contradicting statements in this article concerning the physical properties of Terbium. The opening paragraph claims that Terbium is "very hard" and the physical properties section describes Terbium as "soft enough to be cut with a knife." Perhaps these are differeneces between the oxide and metalic forms. This should be noted if that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.126.51.51 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WebElements says it can be, but I doubt it – it makes the same claim for thulium, which is just about impossible to cut with a normal knife. Maybe it can be scratched with a knife? (Tm can.) I'll change the statement accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terbium can be scratched with a knife, but it would take a long time to cut it with a knife. It is very resistant to being damaged. I know this falls under original research guidelines but it is quite strong, at least my piece is. 75.80.123.188 (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardness?

The summary claims the the element is 'malleable, ductile, and very hard.' The physical properties section claims that it is 'malleable, ductile, and soft enough to be scratched with a knife.' The hardness indicators (Vickers and Brinell) point to it having a hardness on par with high-grade steel. Can we get some consistency here? I'd fix it myself, but I don't have a reference book handy to double check the data. 173.164.183.245 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's hard, but can be scratched with a knife. This is totally not a reliable source, but says that Tb is soft but resists impacts well. That could be an explanation. Annoyingly I haven't found a reliable source on this. Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

The precautions section here was pretty bad before. I redid it. Usually these sections are titled "Safety" so please let me know if there are any screwups. Recon rabbit 19:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SirBrahms (talk · contribs) 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. Just giving it a general look, it's looking stable, and I don't see any quickfails. Expect initial comments in around 24 hours. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial Review: The article seems good in general, but there are some minor issues to be resolved still. First off, criterion 2b was failed because the lead section doesn't cite any sources.

As for criterion 1a, the article often talks about Tb instead of terbium, see, for example, section "Compounds"
(...) by annealing Tb(III) halides in presence of metallic Tb in tantalum containers. or
When TbF4 and CsF is mixed in a stoichiometric ratio in a fluorine gas atmosphere, CsTbF5 is obtained.
I think it would be clearer to the reader if those chemical formulas were replaced with full names, for example
(...) by annealing terbium(III) halides in presence of metallic terbium. and
When terbium(IV)fluoride and caesium fluoride is mixed in a stoichiometric ratio in a fluorine gas atmosphere, caesium pentafluoroterbate (CsTbF5) is obtained.
If a given compound comes up multiple times, I'd suggest giving the full name the first time it is mentioned, and just giving a chemical formula for later instances (except in lists). That said, I'm not sure if this is common on element pages (I did check Indium and Rhodium, which seem to support my argument)

Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEADCITE, there isn't necessarily a need for the lead to cite any sources, as all the information contained there is duplicated later in the article. If this is a sticking point for you I can reinsert the relevant references to the lead in invisible comments.

I'll make some changes to the formulae, treating them as one would acronyms in any other article. Recon rabbit 13:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I based my comments on the lead section off other element articles, which do cite sources there. If you think it's unnecessary, you're free to leave it the way it is.

Please notify me once you're done with the formulae. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SirBrahms I believe I've addressed the formulae as best I can. There's no way to simplify the electron configurations in Physical properties, everything else should be written out before the formula is shown when possible. As comparison for the lead, there are no footnotes in elements gadolinium through ytterbium. Recon rabbit 18:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have looked at some other element articles as well, and it does seem to be customary to leave the lead citationless. I will be passing your nomination. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SirBrahms, just want to let you know under the current good article criteria it's typical for a reviewer to check a few sources and make sure that the text is verified by the sources, stating specifically which sources were checked against the text. If you can make a note of that it would be useful. Recon rabbit 01:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know that. I checked sources 8, 51, 56, 57 and 70. I hope this suffices. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you! Recon rabbit 12:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]