Talk:Staurolite

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Staurolite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Staurolite is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Formula discrepancy

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The number of H atoms in the description doesn't match the number given in the chemical formula in the sidebar. I believe it should be O22(OH)2 to match the sidebar. Correct me if I'm wrong. 129.22.124.198 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seems the 4 OH version is supported by the Handbook of Mineralogy and Webmineral refs while the 2 OH version is supported by the Mindat ref and also by Deer, Howie & Zussman Intro to Rock Forming Minerals (1966 ed p.49) and by Klein Manual of Mineralogy (1985 ed p. 382). Both HBM and Webmineral give chem analysis data consisted with 2 OH , and Klein states that the ideal formula should contain only one OH, but that is usually exceeded. So for consistency go with the 2 OH. Vsmith (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fairy stone redirect

Why doesn't "fairy stone" redirect here?

Peer review of article

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is well written with informative and concise sections but i do feel like it could be expanded on including more reference to increase the strength of the article. Also i have notices some of the references do not lead to an article or a reference to the mineral. Maybe check links 7 and 8 and remove or rewrite the appropriate link. In general it is a good article and i think it is a good standard for the mineral in question. Laxanan (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC) LaxananReply

Add topic