Talk:Praseodymium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talk

---

Commnet: I find that the "Leo Moser" linkage is incorrect. The correct Leo Moser was the son of the Ludwig Moser who founded the Moser glassworks in Karlovy Vary (formerly Karlsbad, Austro-Hungary) in what is now the Czech Republic. Leo was in charge of art direction at the glassworks after his father's death, until a bank foreclosed on the firm during the Depression. Leo managed to escape the Nazis and died in New York in 1976, when he was in his 90's.76.104.127.104 (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've also found this related page. I'll change the article accordingly. Warut (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Berzelium

I created the page berzelium, which was before a redirect to Praseodymium. This was the wrong redirect anyway. Berzelium was discovered as a element similar to thorium, later proven to be thorium. The Marks Brothers (EG Marks and JA Marks) proposed new names for a few elements, but nobody was interested in that. The thing that they proposed Lanthanum to be renamed to berzelium not Praseodymium.--Stone (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation on the page begins with a 'pra' sound, this does not agree with the infobox where both pronunciations begin with the sound 'pray'. I'm not sure if these are alternatives or one is in error. -- deflective (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Praseodymium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021030549/http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1973/1973_Cameron_1.pdf to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1973/1973_Cameron_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131122140504/http://www.iamgold.com/files/REE101_April_2012.pdf to http://www.iamgold.com/files/REE101_April_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parcly Taxel (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to the National University of Singapore in August this year to study mathematics. I never lost my love for this project – indeed I'm amazed at how many articles have been lifted to GA status in the recent months, completing the "transperiodic highway" I once bragged about. Once in university I'll have access to the central library where (hopefully) I can find references for my own FA pushes. In the meantime, though, time to review this. Parcly Taxel 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Problems (I corrected them as I moved along)

• Praseodymium only has one stable isotope, ¹⁴¹Pr, which makes up all of natural praseodymium: hence praseodymium is a mononuclidic element and its relative atomic mass is a constant of nature that can be determined with great precision. This isotope has 82 neutrons and is hence magic, conferring on it additional stability. "great precision" sounds like an exaggeration, and furthermore relative atomic masses do vary between samples. Repetition of praseodymium too in the first sentence.

"Great precision" is to mean: precision only dependent on measurement precision, especially not on sample selection, because all samples have the same nuclide. It's the multi-nuclidic elements that have varieties between samples, as an extra cause of imprecision. Language could be improved indeed (but not by me). -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Praseodymium dissolves readily in dilute sulfuric acid to form solutions containing the chartreuse Pr³⁺ ions, which exist as a [Pr(H₂O)₉]³⁺ complexes: whoops.
• High but uncertain coordination numbers and poorly defined stereochemistry is the rule… Rather iffy.
• The first reference in the history section could be was made more reliable.
• Praseodymium's classification as a rare earth metal rather comes from the fact that it is rarer than "common earths" such as lime and magnesia, and that only a few minerals for which praseodymium extraction is commercially viable are known. The process of extraction is also rather long and arduous. Lots of words here and two related sentences, can be trimmed.
• The Gibbs free energy of formation for the formation of the Ln(edta·H) complexes increase along the lanthanides by about one quarter from Ce³⁺ to Lu³⁺, so that the Ln³⁺ cations descend the development column in a band and are fractionated repeatedly, so that they are eluted from the heaviest to the lightest. More confused words.
• …but the main side effects from inhalation of rare earth oxides in humans come not from the rare earths themselves but from the radioactive thorium and uranium impurities, as the rare earths tend to occur together with these elements. Ditto.

Source for Pr(V)?

Because without sources, it looks it's nonexistent. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference 19. Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Praeseodymium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Praeseodymium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)