Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lead/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2017 [1].

---

Lead

Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk), R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the seven metals of antiquity. I've been working with R8R Gtrs to get it up to this level on and off since about last year, and the talk page reviews make me confident that it finally meets the criteria. (Naturally, I consulted R8R for the final confirmation of the go-ahead; this is my first FA nomination, after all!) Of course, I support as nominator. Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Hawkeye7

Groan. Let's start with getting it fully referenced, which should have happened back at GA. Find citations for:

References

• Fourth paragraph of "Bulk"
• First paragraph of "Isotopes"
• First paragraph of "Chemistry"
• Second, third and fourth paragraphs of "In space"
• First paragraph of "Confusion with tin and antimony"
• First, sixth and seventh paragraphs of "Elemental form"
• First paragraph of "Exposure sources"

After seeing this lengthy list, I initially thought, "oh my, do we actually have such a poorly referenced article that we have so many citationless paragraphs?" Turns out most of these (exceptions being the "In space" and "Elemental form" paragraphs) are actually referenced. If there are particular claims in these paragraphs that you want to be referenced, please add them so that I could understand what I need to get references for (or feel free to use the {{cn}} tags).

Also, I'd want to note that the first paragraph in "Elemental form" contains no new information that has not been referenced elsewhere in the article.

I will, of course, add citations for the rest of problematic paragraphs and any specified problems if they follow.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Added the source I used when writing In space. Only Elemental form left.--R8R (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sandbh resolved this some time ago (thank you!).--R8R (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing references

• Add Thornton, Radu & Brush (2001) to the Bibliography

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Link rot

• FN 24, 34, 41 and 209 are dead

Archived links for citations 24, 34, and 209. 41 does not qualify for a dead link (it is a hyperlink to Bibliography).--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete references

• FN 1, 64, 205 access date?

Done.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 5, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 39, 49, 52, 58, 59, 6-, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74, 77, 87, 96, 104, 109, 120, 122, 124, 132, 133, 134, 153, 168, 169, 173, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 201, 206, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214 ISSN?

This is another requirement I've never heard of. In neither {{cite book}} nor {{cite journal}} have I found these among the ones most commonly used.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 13, 22, 53, 73 page number?

Done for no. 13. I removed the claim supported by no. 53. Citation 73 contains a monograph number, which is an acceptable option instead of page numbers. Resolution pending for no. 22.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Found a replacement for no. 22.--R8R (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 19, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 107, 112, 115, 116, 117, 121, 125, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199 location?

During my previous FACs, this never was a requirement. I had to have them all in or all out. As I faced this choice again prior to this FAC, I decided to have them all out as they add little meaningful information to the citation, if at all.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 64, 164 publisher?

Citation 64 is a reference to a web page and {{cite web}} advises against having a publisher in this case. Done for citation 164.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 155 Fix the date format

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 211 Journal?

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 211 Date?

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggest moving to the Bibliography

• FN 2, 6, 8, 13, 16, 19, 22, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 112, 115, 116, 117, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199

I'd rather not as I don't see the point. I think it's generally better to get your citation in one click rather than two.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Nergaal

Lead

• its density of 11.34 g/cm3 => too many sig figs, and/or put it in parenthesis

How come two is too many, especially when we have a reliable source to cover the claim in the body?--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I generally don't like long numbers in intro

I don't see this number as long in any way. It's four digits long.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• of all practically stable elements => this is very unencyclopedic

This one is difficult to react on. What do I do to enhance encyclopedicness?--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"practically stable" is very weak

I actually think it's fine. Nonetheless, what do you suggest?--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

not radioactive? Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

try now Sandbh (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• the heaviest truly stable nuclide or something like that should be in intro

I deliberately removed that from the lead section as this is a fact of undue importance. In any practical sense, bismuth is the champion. Even if we go into theory, then it must be noted that lead is not truly stable in the sense of how it is expected to be radioactive as well. "Heaviest element that has not been observed to decay" is not just as catchy a claim.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead is a post-transition metal => isn't it an "other metal" ? /s

No, it is coded in the periodic table as a post-transition metal. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

/s

@Nergaal: is this one ok now? Sandbh (talk).

/s Nergaal (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean /s? Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• lead shows a tendency => use exhibits

Sure.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• intro should mention that lead is one of the most common heavy metals in the human body, although it has no role (it's due to environmental presence)

I specified that in the body of the article. As for lead, I find it difficult to fit in one paragraph the claims of a) lead being one of the most common heavy metals in the human body despite no role; and b) lead being highly toxic given that no organization like WHO signals massive lead poisoning of the humanity. I've got enough space in the body, but I'll rather sacrifice claim a) here for a short self-contained description. By the way, I don't see some particular importance of the claim anyway.

All in all, cool (and I speficied that in the appropriate section) but doesn't fit in the lead.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• intro should mention that it is one of the few elements known since ancient times

We have an even stronger claim: "Lead [...] was known to prehistoric people in Western Asia."--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

yes, but it is one of only ~8 elements known since antiquity

I considered your idea one more time. It doesn't sound right: "Lead was known to prehistoric people. It was one of the eight elements that were known in the antiquity." (Note that antiquity comes after prehistory.) Don't see the point in specifying this given lead is present in an earlier era, an even more unique thing than being a metal of antiquity.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure one of the larger uses of lead is in gigantic capacitors that help stabilize the fluctuations of voltage of electric grids inside cities. Supercapacitor. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

atomic

• should be a bit more clear that relativistic effects favor +2

We have that covered in the more relevant section of Lead#Inorganic compounds.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

the section says +4 isn't common but I think it should explicitly say prefers +2 instead of +4 cause of relativistic effects

Again, we got that covered in Inorganic compounds, which is the most relevant place to talk about oxidation states in inorganic compounds anyway: "Lead shows two main oxidation states: +4 and +2. The tetravalent state is common for group 14. The divalent state is rare for carbon and silicon, minor for germanium, important (but not prevailing) for tin, and is the more important for lead: even the strongest oxidizing agents, oxygen, and fluorine, initially oxidize lead only to lead(II).[38] This is caused by relativistic effects, specifically the inert pair effect..."--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

See my additionNergaal (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks ok now. Sandbh (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• allotrope para is confusing: half of it is about what lead is not; trim that and pls add explicitly what other allotropes are known

took 3 mins: http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4873596

Oh, I stand corrected, thank you. I missed that one. Leave it with me for a bit. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Note added to end of atomic properties section. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Something is wrong with that paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be better now. Sandbh (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit more. See if it is fine. Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• somewhere in the intro talk about lead banning/phase-out laws (and later on mention that study correlating drop in violent crimes 20yrs after lead gasoline was banned)

The purported link between crime and lead is mentioned in the Biological section. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

bulk

• are any allotropes metalloids?

No, since lead has no allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4873596

As per previous mention of allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Unknown, as above. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• melting point of lead is low compared to most metals => are there applications for lead baths due to this low mp? how dangerous are lead vapors (in industrial settings) considering this low mp?

I found that the answer is most probably no: "Where lead containing solders are used, the risk from lead is usually very low. This may seem strange given the high percentage of the metal in the solder. However, soldering is usually carried out at a temperature of around 380 C and significant lead fume is only evolved at temperatures above 450 C. So exposure by inhalation is normally insignificant. This is recognised in the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) supporting the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 (CLAW). Table 2 in the ACoP (reproduced below) lists processes which are not liable to result in significant exposure to lead. This list includes “Low-temperature melting of lead (below 500°C)” during soldering." And a few others.--R8R (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• really nice that you put all numbers in perspective to other elements

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

isotopes

• nowhere in the entire article is explained why is lead used as an x-ray shield => this is a particular use of lead that no other element really has;

We've got a picture of that but I agree, we can explicitly explain it. This will happen.--R8R (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note added. Sandbh (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• nd is a magic number => add in nuclear physics

Don't understand this one. What do you want to be done (and is it related to this article?)--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

magic number is a general term. here it is in the context of nuclear physics

I still don't understand. If you mean correcting the wikilink from magic number to magic number (nuclear physics), as I just read it, then it already points at the right article, Magic number (physics).--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I edited this bit and added a note about lead-208 being doubly magic. Should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

the stuff in parenthesis is what I was looking for. Nergaal (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• only primordial isotope => wikilink primordial

Sure.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• very slightly radioactive => i think radioactive it a bit much here; say decays extremely slowly

Done.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• d for any of them:[24] accordingly => why ":" ?

Agree; I put a semicolon.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• ranium series, actinium series, and thorium series => wikilink

There is nothing to wikilink these to. All three search queries redirect to decay chain, which has been linked by this point.

I though those series had separate articles, nvm then

• famous uses for lead–lead and uranium–lead dating?

We have a cool picture of a meteorite that mentions one example of such a use. Overall, I think that this is a relatively minor question for an overview article like thism and it's already long enough.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant say something in text that is used in dating meteorites and old geologic formations. I guess image caption covers it

• the 4th decay chain should be presented a bit more clear: i.e. it stops at Bi

Don't see why: it's not about lead. Again, space is limited.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

fair point. could you though clarify that the 3 Pb isotopes are end points of the chains?

I think we got that covered: "lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 are the final decay products of uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232, respectively".--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts.

We do the talk at the more relevant section, Origin and occurrence (specifically, the In space part).--R8R (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking something more explicit along the lines of "the stable periodic table" ends at Pb/Bi; everything beyond that will eventually decay. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• this section should talk about double magic numbers and which isotopes of Pb are

Magic_number_(physics)#Double_magic

"atomic number is ... a physical magic number.". The first time I (a half-layman) encounter this 'magic number' thing. (Today I have added 'physical'). I stumble, because as an explanation of whatever, it is not enough. In science, one cannot say: "Why so?" "By magic number!" "Oh great, that's clear then". I'd expect italics for this new concept (but cannot find the MOS for this); a wl is not enough. Then, the word magic does not return, nor is it explained in any length. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

chemistry

• maybe mention in the chemistry section if anybody argued that Pb is a metalloid

There is only one relatively recent reference that I'm aware of that refers to Pb as a metalloid and, IIRC, one plumbing journal article from the 30's that refer to lead as a metalloid. I tend to feel that these references are too few and too obscure to merit a mention in this article. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• what typical test do freshman college courses use to identify lead samples? I can't remember exactly, but there is a standard benchtop test

I have not replied up to this point as I couldn't find it to build an opinion. I still can't. This makes me think it's not a big loss. --R8R (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is qualitative inorganic analysis (add HCl to precipitate out Pb²⁺), but that's not for metallic lead. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, ions of lead. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• —plumbites— wikilinks strangely use ()

Fixed this one.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• I might be wrong, but wasn't one of Pb salts a "prototypic" packing unit cell (maybe PbS)?

Even if so, what does it change? It's just a name.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

other ox states

• say somewhere that [Pb9]4- is one of the common zintl anions of Pb and maybe give a picture of it

I don't follow: we already have a picture? As for "say something," I'd rather not. This whole Zintl topic is quite minor to write much text about it. I'd rather focus on lead(II) and lead(IV).

I didn't see the picture; the caption is way too long. I actually think the Zintl para might be too long. But [Pb9]4- is the most common one, more so than [Pb5]-. And is [Pb]4- considered Zintl? I thought you need E-E bonds for it.

Shorthened the caption. As for which one is more common: doesn't matter much. It's already in the picture so it seems reasonable to me to highlight something else in the text. Both are pretty minor anyway.

The source from Universitaet Freiburg indeed says Ba₂Pb is Zintl.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• switch 3rd para with 2nd para

Done.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lead(II)_sulfate.jpg is a cool image

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that link got there but I meant to say Galena has really cool looking images. There is nothing cool about boring white powder. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has a few cool images indeed, but these are mostly the mineral rather than the compound. We could take the space-filling unit cell model but we already have a few similar pics (though ask for it again and I won't insist).--R8R (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of this: file:Calcite-Galena-elm56c.jpg. Since it is the main common ore, why not have a picture of it that also looks cool? Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

origin

• the table seems a bit random, why were the present entries chosen?

The idea is that all elements are even-numbered; we have mercury as the closest even-numbered element, Th and U, and a few elements of comparable occurrence with a Z of 40--60 to illustrate that lead is indeed quite common for its atomic number.

still seems incredibly random. maybe merge it with the image below it since that one needs a better caption anyways

I adjusted the set of featured elements. Looks better to me now.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I get the >=78 choices, but I don't understand why 42, 46, and 50? why not compare it to other Z magic numbers? Also, looking at Elements_abundance-bars.svg I think it would be really important to say explicitly that it is the most aboundadnt element above Z=56? This would come as a natura conclusion from the fact that all ehavier stuff produced in supernova have decayed to enrich the solar system in Pb. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• is the relative abundance in the crust much different from that in the Solar System? Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I prepared some time ago an introductory sentence for this but apparently didn't add the figure itself. Added it now.--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm missing it. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Image caption should say Pb is rightmost-red spot (image is unreadable without zoom) Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The image is supposed to be read. This is a scheme, they are meant to be read. Besides, I don't understand what you mean. Lead is the middle row (pretty clear from the image itself).--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the problem I am having is that the image is hard to read at that zoom level, so I thought having a pointer in the caption saying where is Pb on that graph would help. Even something like more common than all the elements with Z > ? would help. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "s 0.121 ppb (parts per billion" => so what rough rank does it have among elements? same for in earth, what rough rank? Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

etym

• should discuss meaning of plumbum / plumber also
• maybe mention other languages too

I don't want any other languages in this section. Etymology of the English word lead is the top priority in the English Wikipedia. As for other notable names and words---as in your plumbing example---this is better suited for History, and we actually cover it there.--R8R (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The etymologies in other languages don't relate so well to the English one as the ones for Fe which I included there. It is also difficult to find some of them, in particular Chinese 鉛 qiān (a lot of sites will give the graphic etymology of the character, which has nothing to do with the etymology of the word). Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

history

• sugar of lead => use "" for this term and give the chemical compound name in text

Done. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• decline of Rome theories => list what effects of lead poisoning satisfy this theory; why do some researchers argue against?

As for what caused this theory: we've mentioned by this point that "writers of the time, such as the Cato the Elder, Columella, and Pliny the Elder, recommended lead (or lead-coated) vessels for the preparation of sweeteners and preservatives added to wine and food." Also see note l. As for why against: expanded a bit.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add more later. Nergaal (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• How come no discussion on alchemy and association with Saturn?

We got that covered, too: "Lead poisoning—a condition in which one becomes dark and cynical—was called "saturnine" after the ghoulish father of the gods, Saturn, and, by association, lead was considered the father of all metals.[115]"--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/alchemy/82/lead and Alchemical_symbol#Seven_planetary_metals Nergaal (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. We had this some time ago, so I thought we still do. We'll add it back when we have more alchemy material available (my point of concern is that we have European alchemy but not Arabian one. This wouldn't be a big loss in a printed book, but Wiki is a different business). Hopefully, this won't take too much time.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alchemy content added. Sandbh (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pls add File:Saturn_symbol.svg somewhere, since for the longest time that was practical symbol for lead. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead is mentioned in the Old Testament

I've taken a long time to think about this one. Added.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

footnote m is weird. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• why did the pope declare it forbidden? did they base it on toxicological reasons?

Yes. Lead often caused colics. Do you want that in the text?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise it reads incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• were lead cannonball ever used?

I googled it and the answer is yes, though apparently, lead's softness is a disadvantage. Unlike bullets, these weren't used as long.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I put a link above. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• what lead compounds were used for whitening faces?

Too many to list, I think. See here--R8R (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think at least White lead should be mentioned. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Where? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Outside Europe and Asia" can be merged with previous section

These subtitles were not my invention in first place. I liked the story not being torn apart by headers. Nonetheless, if we do use them, I'd want to keep this one. The reason for that would be the content of this paragraph (lead mining in the Americas, Africa, and Australia) differs from the previous one (lead usage in (mostly) medieval and Renaissance Europe).--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Technically you should mention Ancient Egypt uses of lead in cosmetics. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Lead production in the United States dominated by 1900" you mean US became the major producer?

changed to "The United States became world's largest producer by 1900." Hopefully, it's good now.--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Into the modern era" is a bit too artistic

True. Is it bad though? If so, can you suggest an alternative?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just say "Modern Era" or "In Modern Era". Also, remove The from the previous subtitle. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "ountries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with" when was the first significant program?

Depends on what you define as significant. In my view, that is the White Lead convention, which prompted many European countries to ban lead paints for some applications (Ctrl+F "1930" in the text). You may also think of the following fragment as of the answer: "In the UK, Sir Thomas Morrison Legge became the ®rst Medical Inspector of Factories in 1898. A centralized system of factory inspection had been created under the Factories and Workshop Act of 1878, and Legge did pioneering work to implement the Act". I stand by paints, and we mentioned them.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

add it pls. this could be mentioned in the restriction of lead usage section as a "landmark" towards rolling back its use. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "adding of tetraethyllead to gasoline" => because it did what?

Served as an antiknock agent. Added.--R8R (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• "From 1960 to 1990, lead output in ..." and after is a bit TMI; trim this production part since it is present in the next section

I disagree. First of all, 1990 was over 25 years ago; it is history. Second, it's natural to focus a bit more what is common to the contemporary people. Third, there is actually no overlap that I see. Production does not deal with the 1980s; it deals with the 2010s (i.e., the present as opposed to comparably recent past).--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time the text talks about increase of "31%". Up until now it's been only X had largest, Y produced over half, etc. Keep the gist and move extra % to a subarticle. Nergaal (talk)

The idea of percentages is that lead production did not decline despite all the new regulations on it. I put a colon in the end of the previous sentence to demonstrate that.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere else you said that stuff shouldn't be in this main article. I think exact changes (besides trends) should be left out of the main para. Just trim those sentences to increase by a third in the Western Block and tripling in the eastern Block. However, starting with mid 20th century, China began industrializing and by 2004 became the largest producer. This had negative health effects like in the west. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• has coal burning in plants been a source of worry for lead poisoning? I would be very surprised it it isn't part of the "clean coal" idea

It has, but apparently mercury is the main heavy metal to worry about. Let's get back to this when we reach the section on environment.--R8R (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• nowhere here nor later in text is explained why lead-based paint has been popular? was it white lead compounds that don't lose whiteness? was it cheap prices?

The heavy metal additive also decreases the amount of time that the paint takes to dry, makes the paint more durable, and causes the paint to be more moisture resistant. This made lead-based paint ideal for use in homes, on metal exposed to the elements, and even children’s toys.

I'll integrate this into the text.--R8R (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I googled more and it turns out the main advantage was its opacity. Added.--R8R (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• in reference to the previous point: not sure where to put this, but isn't lead a relatively cheap element (because it is easily concentrated?)? I think it's because of this, lead has had many applications. Maybe mention somewhere that lead has been historically relatively accessible/cheap. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

production

• "Production and consumption of lead is increasing worldwide (due to its use in lead-acid batteries)" this is so vague

It is meant to be vague. This is the first sentence in the section. We proceed to specifics later.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the parenthesis OR or it's from an actual source? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The top lead producing countries were " when?

Here's some context:

In 2013, 4.74 million metric tons came from primary production and 5.74 million tons from secondary production. The top mining countries for lead in that year were China, Australia, Russia, India, Bolivia, Sweden, North Korea, South Africa, Poland, and Ireland. The top lead producing countries were China, United States, India, South Korea, Germany, Mexico, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Australia.[143]

Is it really unclear?--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Missed that. But you don't need to give out top10 mining if you have a table. Why not give a production table too and trim the text to only major producers. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought about this. Yet there are two considerations:

• We don't have data for miners and producers from the same year. The lists mention data from the same year, 2013, to keep the data listed side-by-side, because listing them side by side implies the reader can compare the two sets, and the comparison is only correct when the data is from the same time range.
• The most up-to-date data for mining is from 2015. For production, it's only 2013. Removing the 2013 mining data suggests we run into the problem I described above or lose the option of comparing the two sets. Removing the 2015 mining data means we don't list the newest data we have.

Also, two tables side by side don't look nice. Bringing them into one table could be better, but the sets of countries don't match.

That's why it's the way it currently is.--R8R (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The second table doesn't need to be right in the same place. I suggest having it in the section before. Different year is fine. The image is nice, but might as well add a table with numbers too. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "the global per capita stock of lead in use " annual?

What do you mean, "annual stock"?--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood that. It is trying to say the total lead amount divided by the world population is 8 kg / person, but it is said in a pretty convoluted manner. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "a very low percentage of lead," is lead mined as a primary or a secondary ore?

In galena, lead is the primary metal. In basically any other mineral lead is obtained from -- secondary.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess my question here is similar to the one below: is the ore mined for lead primarily, or for a set of metals where lead is secondary? since lead is pretty cheap I have hard time imagining they mine the ore for the lead primarily. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "which has a lead content fraction of 30–80%" by what? mass? as in almost pure PbS?

Yes. 80% was referred to as an exceptional case though.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Specified the regular percentages.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• isn't sulfuric acid a major (more important) desired product of the production chain?

I have re-read Ullmann on this. Nowhere does it say so.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• the text almost implies that Pb is produced more of as a by-product of sulfuric acid and Au/Ag production chain. am I wrong? how much of the bottomline $ do these other products represent

I don't see why you think so but I'll leave this for now to think about it. I believe percentages are beyond the scope of the article.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

my thought here is there a "producer or lead" or the producer makes something and also recovers lead to increase profit? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "silica fluoride" should be linked

Nothing to link to, but I spelled out the formula.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

who cals SiF6 2- a silica fluoride? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

applications

• are uranium tank shells a direct replacement of Pb shells or W ones? in other words, does the army use/used Pb outside small bullets?

I've taken my time to look for it. As for tank armor, I think the answer is no (unless you mean big containers by "tanks"). I was unable to quickly identify a good detailed source in English, but I used my knowledge of Russian to see the Soviet/Russian army never relied on lead much, if at all (Russia has the largest standing tank army).--R8R (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant stuff like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/archaeology/9991936/Mary-Rose-reveals-armour-piercing-cannonball-secret.html Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. And very cool. Sandbh (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• lead glass is about PbO, so it shouldn't be in the elemental form section

Indeed. I removed this information as Compounds already mentions its use as a colorant.--R8R (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• there should be a bit more info about lead statues. check this out. Degas used lead armatures for some of his bronze statues [2]

Done. Sandbh (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• are certain instruments traditionally made of lead

"Instrument" is a wide term. What do you mean?--R8R (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of lead pipe, but lead means something else here. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

biological

• "The main target for lead toxicity in humans is the central nervous system." then "The primary cause of lead's toxicity is its predilection for interfering with the proper functioning of enzymes."

From what I understand, there is no contradiction here.--R8R (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

you mean the enzymes in the second sentence are in CNS or in general? if the latter it reads weird. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• what is "Chinese brass"

Antique metalware made from brass in China.--R8R (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Restriction of lead usage" should have more dates on first ban examples; also, when were lead pipes banned since even in colonial US they seem to be in use

Nobody said anything about banning lead pipes in the U.S. They were, however, subjected to closer attention and government-approved anticorrosion measures. See Lead and Copper Rule.

As for more dates: what dates are we missing?--R8R (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Like first state/place in the world that banned leaded gasoline? or leaded paint? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• are there any plans for lead cleanup? where is lead waste being dumped?

Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• there is no mention of actual amounts in the human body (average, highest recorded?) Nergaal (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see of what use could highest recorded rates be. Probably it would be one of those people who has been shot a huge number of times. Seriously, though, I genuinely don't see the point of looking at the extreme cases.

As for average ones: I have seen that many papers quote the figure "120 mg" (thus 1.7 ppm assuming a 70 kg human), but I'm staying away from it following this quote: "Lead in human bodies comes from food, drinking water, and the environment. The rates vary greatly by country.[188]" The source is a WHO report.--R8R (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"human body is exceeded only by iron and zinc. " should add an average number of mg an average adult has in their body. also, is this problematic in cremations? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm

Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• some images from lead poisoning might be worthwhile adding here

Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246629/ Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

John

Oppose on prose. Sample clunky sentence: "One of them is lead-210; although it has a half-life of 22.3 years,[26] a period too short to allow any primordial lead-210 to exist, some small non-primordial quantities of it occur in nature, because lead-210 is found in the uranium series: thus, even though it constantly decays away, it is constantly regenerated by decay of its parent, polonium-214, which, while also constantly decaying, is also supplied by decay of its parent, and so on, all the way up to original uranium-238, which has been present for billions of years on Earth." This is not the standard required. We also don't need to use the respell template on such a common word. Further comments will follow but my initial impression is that this is a long way off where it needs to be to pass. --John (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I've broken this sentence into two, and it indeed looks better this way. As for respell: I think it does not hurt in an infobox. I can, however, relate to the point that we don't need a transcription in the text if you raise that.

Eagerly waiting for your further comments. Hopefully your initial impression will change, after either you read the article in whole or we solve the problems you raise.--R8R (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

About using respell: Lead (disambiguation) told me there is a major and significant difference between this lead and (to) lead. I'd prefer to keep it respelled. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mmm. I would argue that the detailed info about the various versions of this word are better placed at the dab page than on a hypothetical future version of this page which is of FA quality. --John (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No. It was there five years ago already, and rightly so. As I said, different pronunciation for a same-spelled word is huge (unless one knows this beforehand, of course?). There is no argument in "I don't need it, so nobody does", or even worse: "you can look it up elsewhere". Also, please leave the cynicism out. The undisputed fact that your knowledge of English language is great does not allow you to look down on others. That part of 'being English' we don't need. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Further comments; image formatting is weird, extensive over-writing (count the "however"s), why is "sugar of lead" in italics? The more I look the more problems I see. A Featured Article has to be written elegantly to be clearly understood. This looks like it was written to maximise the word count. --John (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• (9X "as such")
• (3X "however")
• (1X "moreover")
• (1X "nevertheless")
• (1X "additionally")
• (11X "while")
• (5X "although")

None of these words are forbidden, but as a rule of thumb they should occur about an order of magnitude less frequently than this in a FA. This is a symptom of a general lack of attention to language throughout the article. Merely replacing or removing these words would be necessary but not sufficient. --John (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've asked Sandbh to take care of prose quality. He is able to produce beautiful prose in English, so I am confident this will be resolved; just bear with us.

Interim progress note: I've reduced the words of concern from 31 to 3. Have just noticed there are 24X "also" (another of John's favourite, rightly not) so will get started on trimming these too. Sandbh (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

''Interim progress note 2: All the "also's" have become also-rans (one managed to seek refuge in a note). Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

''Interim progress note 3: I've copy-edited all sections bar the lead and the one on Biological and environmental effects. After that I'll check for paragraph flow, and wiki-linking, and by then I hope to be done. Sandbh (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Concluding remarks. My copy-editing is done. Paragraph flow checked. Wikilinks checked and adjusted. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced italics for "sugar of lead" with quotation marks, which seem to be more appropriate. As for image formatting: what's wrong with it? I'd react somehow, but I don't yet even realize what the problem is.--R8R (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Maybe I can make some suggestions myself? The usual plural of "alkali" in English is "alkalis". --John (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I first learned about this spelling when my browser highlighted the "alkalis" that I typed as an unknown word. I then referred to my usual reference dictionary, Merriam-Webster. It says, "plural alkalies or alkalis," putting the -ies form before the -is one. I think this makes the use of "alkalies" in American English justified.--R8R (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks to all for the replies. I (probably) wouldn't oppose solely over the respell template (although we certainly don't need a pronunciation guide in the lead as well!). I think I would oppose over the spelling issue. I don't deny that "alkalies" exists, but what is the benefit of using this highly unusual spelling rather than the one used most often? I certainly oppose strongly over the stodgy prose. A major copyedit is required. Images should be formatted according to WP:IMGSIZE as well. Feel free to ping me when you want me to take another look. --John (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

re "we certainly don't need a pronunciation guide in the /ˈliːd/ as well!"? Is there one, then?

re: wouldn't oppose solely over the respell template: there are arguments.

And to keep in mind: not all our Readers can pronounce the IPA alphabet. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: The fact that so many issues were raised so quickly here makes me think that this article wasn't quite ready for FAC. Aside from the already lengthy list of concerns, we also have an oppose recommending a major copy-edit. Therefore, I am archiving this nomination. I would recommend that the nominator work with the reviewers here and return to FAC after at least the two-week minimum wait when these concerns have all been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.