Talk:Germanium/GA1

GA Review

Outer space, elements, I'm still stalking. Comments to follow jimfbleak (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lead No mention of the history, surprising in view of the periodic table link
• History Two queries on paragraph 1. The Periodic Law of the Chemical Elements - was this the title, if so, is it possible to reference the publication?
• I can see why you've bolded ekasilicon, but I'm not sure if a predicted element with properties X and Y is the same as an actual element with similar, but not identical, properties X1 and Y1. (This is a pure nitpick you are free to ignore)

Ekasilicon I believe is a valid alternative name even today. Basically back then they did not understand the periodic table but ever since they did, IUPAC switched to stuff like ununseptium instead of eka-astatine. Nergaal (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• mineral had been found that was known as - perhaps better was named as or became known as?
• Winkler could proof ?
• It was only during World War II, in 1941, that it began to supplant vacuum tubes in electronic devices. - how did it supplant tubes, needs clarifying
• higher purity samples - not sure that samples is the right word.
• 146 tons - links to a disambiguation page, also, since rest of article is in metric, need to give a conversion as well as the imperial.
• Characteristics - Opening skips along a bit for a layman, what about Germanium is a brittle, silvery-white, semi-metallic element under normal conditions.[18] This form, α-germanium, has...
• crystalline germanium for semiconductors that have - either crystals of or that has
• depending on what they end up touching - perhaps depending on what they eventually touch?

I'll read the rest later jimfbleak (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

sneak preview, please look at para 2 of Chemistry, also explain ppm, sort out unit in line 1 of production and none are mined because of its in Natural abundance jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome feedback. I will work on these issues tonight, Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Chemistry Germanium compounds form on fusion with alkaline carbonates and sulfur salts known as thiogermanates.- doesn't make sense
• If excess of a mineral acid be added - I recognise a subjunctive, not sure all readers will
• Nucleophilic Addition With Organogermanium (caption) - Too Many Capitals
• were reported as the less hazardous liquid substitute - why reported here?
• carbene pendants - what does pendant mean here?
• Natural abundance 1.6 ppm. - expand or link ppm
• none are mined because of its germanium content. - none is?
• 1600t
• and even in some of the most distant stars - why even? does distance make it less likely?
• 100 t
• Mining A source for germanium is also the fly ash - also?
• Fiber optics Most notable characteristics of Infrared optics is
• Infrared optics Due to the fact that germanium is transparent in the infrared made it - doesn't quite make sense
• References inconsistent with regard to surnames or first names/initials coming first

Only a second read and ref/image check, and the pain will soon go away. jimfbleak (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please have a read through the refs, a number have obvious issues. jimfbleak (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow and try to make the author formatting as consistent as possible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Note that Masanori Kaji should be left as it is, since I assume Masanori is the surname, as in Chinese. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tried to get some of the points, but now its late and I have to sleep, but I know there are others doing a great job.--Stone (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've solved all the issues that Stone did not check. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Further edits

Additional edits made by myself and User:Ling.Nut here

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

To do before FAC

• Lead – still no mention of the history
• Inconsistencies in capitalising refs, eg (ref 52) Performance of Light-Weight, Battery-Operated, High Purity Germanium Detectors for Field Use versus (ref 58) american cancer society, and in between, (ref 36) Astronomy: Elements of surprise
• PDF or pdf?

Chemistry accuracy

Looking at the chemistry section its a bit flaky IMO. Should I edit it? - I dont want to step on any ones toes. (Problems I see are for example GeO (BTW I'd call this germanous oxide not germanious oxide) is made pure from GeO₂ + metal, the reduction with Mg method I'm sure works, but probably gets some magnesium germanide mixed in. Ge₂O₃-- I can find no references to this compound except as a mention in a book about etchants saying it occurs as a surface oxide on Ge metal after sputtering - however there is an organometallic compound popularly called germanium sesquioxide, which is hyped by some for its medicinal properties. While I wait a response I shall see about ading this compound.--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your are welcome to contribute and add to the article. As long as you do not remove present information but add to what is there already nobody will mind at all. And even if you do want to change what is in the article already, as long as you bring references it is 100% ok to do it (in this case though, it is probably better to leave the previous information as hidden text rather that just delete it, so future editors can check it). And for this article in particular, if you think something is wrong, bring it to the talkpage or even put it in the article and main contributors will decide on it. Nergaal (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Everest, David A. (1950). "Germanous oxide and sulphide". J. Chem. Soc.: 2282–2285. doi:10.1039/JR9500002282. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Sládková, J. (1968). "Thin oxide films on germanium". Zeitschrift Czechoslovak Journal of Physics. 18 (6): 801–806. doi:10.1007/BF01696142. {{cite journal}}: horizontal tab character in |journal= at position 12 (help)
• Bernstein, Richard B. (1951). "The Kinetics of the Reaction of Germanium and Oxygen". J. Am. Chem. Soc. 73 (9): 4112–4114. doi:10.1021/ja01153a018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Jolly, William L. (1952). "The Solubility of Hydrous Germanous Oxide and the Potential of the Germanous Oxide--Germanic Oxide Couple". J. Am. Chem. Soc. 74 (22): 5751–5752. doi:10.1021/ja01142a053. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Dennis,, L. M. (1923). "GERMANIUM.1 VI. METALLIC GERMANIUM. REDUCTION OF GERMANIUM DIOXIDE. PREPARATION OF FUSED GERMANIUM. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES". J. Am. Chem. Soc. 45 (9): 2033–2047. doi:10.1021/ja01662a004. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Might help.--Stone (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks - particularly like the W.L.Jolly ( of text book fame) reference as it was from his thesis and may even be his first publication. I will use these refs to strengthen some of the Ge compound articles as well--Axiosaurus (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am good in digging for references, so I do it! Thanks for your contributions to the Germanium articles .--Stone (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tidied up the first part of the Ge chemistry section - however before I do any more I would like an opinion on the level of information regarding thiogermanates, sulfides which to my mind seem to be inappropriately detailed for a review. BTW we haven't got many chemical articles on the germanates, hydroxides, thiogermanates or chalcogenides and that is where the the detail should be found. I shall make adding these my next task along with some more on Ge halides.--Axiosaurus (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now tidied up the oxide and chalcogenide paras adding more on which chalco. compounds exist, hopefully this will meet with approval- I have also added more on hydrides and a short para on cluster anions.

a chemical trend para would be nice- highlighting increased the stabilty of Ge^II over Si^II and Ge's ability to catenate related to bond strength etc.

--Axiosaurus (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the c/e help and for spotting all those problems. I transformed some of your comments into tags. Only a bit more work needed! Nergaal (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The electron configuration is not correct. It is currently listed as [Ar] 3d10 4s2 4p2, when it is supposed to be [Ar] 4s2 3d10 4p2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.171.142 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)