Talk:Paramontroseite

Suggestions for improvement:

1. The infobox should mention that the crystal system is orthorhombic. Are any optical properties known? (eg refractive index).

   I have added "orthorhombic" to the infobox, so that information is now given three times. What source would provide optical properties? The body says it is opaque. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

2. "dehydrogenation" sounds pretty unlikely. However perhaps oxidation is the appropriate process.

   "dehydrogenation" is what the source says. Is this an unreliable source? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

3. In the application section there is a mention of monoclinic form. If this is a natural form it should get an extra mention of its characteristics in the infobox, and in any case some more on how it is made should be mentioned. Usually a different crystal form would get a different mineral name.

   The application section tries to distinguish monoclinic vanadium dioxide from the synthetic paramontroseite precursor. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

4. Vanadium is not converted to rutile, as that is a titanium mineral. But does that mean it adopts the same crystal structure?

   The [poorly worded] source seems to be talking about rutile-paramontroseite and goethite-paramontroseite compounds. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

5. Similarly goethite is an iron mineral, so it may have meant to say "goethite form" (but that may actually be Montroseite.

   Ditto. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

6. Minor: link the technical terms like Ramsdellite Group, montroseite and corvusite

   Redlinks make sense if someone is going to write the articles, but do they help the typical reader? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

   Even if they take 10 years to come about, the redlink may prompt someone to write. Reports come out every so often to say what the popular redlinks are. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

   The question is what is needed to reach C class. Even a B class article may not fully comply with the MOS. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

7. Often, when material is manufactured, it will have a chemical name, like vanadium dioxide, as it will be a pure form and not a blend of elements as found in nature. Particularly for a rare mineral, it likely makes no sense to mine it.

   The [Changzheng et al. 2011] source is interested in the paramontroseite crystal structure rather than the vanadium dioxide chemical formula. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett: Points 3, 4, 5 and 7 could be addressed by removing the last paragraph. What changes are needed to make this article useful to the casual reader? Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  I was wondering if the artificial stuff really is "Paramontroseite" rather than forms of vanadium dioxide. It is worth looking at that article, as there do seem to be many more applications. The orthorhombic form appears to be stable over 70°C, and the monoclinic form below that. On the useful for readers side of things, are there any equations for how this forms? Also this is likely to be amphoteric, but what happens in nature, does it dissolve in water? What are the common impurities in the mineral? For these rare minerals perhaps there is not much more available, so that you will find it hard to write much. But then you can go for a GA assessment without ever getting to C or B.

  I suppose one could argue that only the natural mineral is paramontroseite. I have changed the last paragraph to refer to synthetic "paramontroseite".

  The casual reader will not want information they are unlikely to know exists. If the last paragraph were removed they would not miss it. That should not affect the C class rating.

  If the article presents all the available information it must be considered at least C class, if not B. Is there more available? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  PS the notes and sources being separate is annoying me a lot. I click on mindat and it just keeps opening up the same page again! (I should be clicking on the sources link) Where there is only one source for a note, I think you should have all the information merged in one spot, so that one click will show you all the reference info. Please only split notes and sources/references if it is a complex situation such as many different page numbers from one source). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  The reference style is suitable for an article on a technical subject that cites multi-page reports or books, and is similar to the style that these sources will themselves use. With luck some editor who has access to the three reports whose abstracts are cited will add more from their bodies. The {{sfn}} style encourages them to cite pages. In my view, where that style is used in an article it should be used throughout. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Random break

@Graeme Bartlett: Brushing aside preferences on infoboxes, citation style and redlinking, I see four tangible suggestions for addition of information that most readers would expect:

1. Refractive index
2. Formulas for the way this mineral forms
3. Whether or not it dissolves in water
4. Common impurities

May I assume that if this information is added you will change the rating to C class? Will you support a refinement to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals/Assessment#Quality scale that says these items must be provided for any article on a mineral to get C class? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

For C class I would expect there to be so much content text, that I have to scroll my screen. If we are doing this assessment and extra work, I would suggest that we go for a B class instead, which needs to cover the topic, be well written and have the right supporting info. Also what is there should be correct. The writing is OK Other information to get to a B class would be where did the name come from? Who first described it when? In this reference, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=XrkPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA606 it appears that the mineral gives some rocks colour and cements it. So a bit about its role in rocks would be good. So the 4 items you list would also be good for B class. There might not be a refractive index for the monoclinic form if it is opaque, and perhaps there is a reference on that. The crystal structure picture in the Vanadium(IV) oxide may also be suitable. A picture of a rock with it would be a bonus, but B class should be achievable without it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I have no interest in going for B class, although I encourage you to make the effort. As you know, the differences are:

• Start: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more
• C: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
• B: The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.

There is a huge difference between "Useful to a casual reader" and "Mostly complete". The casual reader is presumably just looking for basic facts about what paramontroseite is, not for a lengthy dissertation on every aspect of the subject. I have never heard of any screen-scrolling test, but I have to scroll the article even on my laptop, so I suppose it passes that one. There is a picture too, although the color seems wrong. What we need is some clarification on how much more information is needed to make the article useful to the casual reader. I am willing to accept your suggestion that that would be:

1. Refractive index
2. Formulas for the way this mineral forms
3. Whether or not it dissolves in water
4. Common impurities

Again, if these four items are added, will you reassess the article as C class? I also see value in general definition of the information needed for an article on a mineral to be considered C class. Would you support that? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That seems worthy of a C class. Refractive index may however be unmeasured. The picture shows crystals that appear nearly transparent, even though the description is of a dark opaque substance. Perhaps the dark matrix is the mineral. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the photo. It is the last image on an e-rocks.com page of a sample sold by David Hospital (Purple-Sky-Minerals), who has uploaded a number of mineral pictures to Wikimedia in 2018. This one looks wrong. I may see if I can find a refractive index measurement. "Opaque" is a relative term, but I am not optimistic. This and other opaque minerals may be doomed to be Start class forever. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)