Talk:Zirconium

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zirconium article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 730 days

Zirconium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 12, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
April 5, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
March 30, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
May 16, 2022	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
August 11, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Untitled

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 11:29, 6 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 05:32, 4 July 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Zirconium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Zirconium Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.

"Zircronium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zircronium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical properties and Characteristics do not match mp, bp

The Melting point and Boiling point listed under Physical properties (in the right-hand sidebar) and under Characteristics in the main body do not match. I am unsure where to find definitive information to correct this error. 72.135.238.191 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

After reviewing this article, I do not believe this article meets the GA criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

I agree with the orange banner at the top that this article's lede is too short.
There are multiple uncited paragraphs and sentences

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Zirconium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many uncited statements, and an orange banner indicating that the lede is too short, which I agree with. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just fix it instead? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the intro and added refs for each citation needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: I do not have the expertise, nor the desire, to find sources, evaluate their usefulness, add prose, and ensure that the article has returned to fulfilling the GA criteria. If others are interested, they are welcome to improve the article and ping me when it is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Thanks for the reply, but I'm puzzled. On the one hand you're uninterested and lack expertise, but on the other you are evaluating and judging. Seems like an odd combination. Are you on some kind of assignment?

In any case I'll try to fix citations needed if they arise in the future. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: An editor does not need to be an expert on the topic to review articles, nor to bring up concerns about uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Oh I agree completely. But still I'm puzzled. You are making a lot of work for other people. Is that work justified? If you came along and said "I'm curious about Zirconium, but the article has these issues:..." or "I read that Zirconium has 8 oxidation states but the claim is uncited and I don't understand it", then I would be motivated to improve the article. But "I'm uninterested" makes me think I should just ignore this altogether.

And sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you. I just see these Good article things once in while and I'm curious about the process. If I announced a particular article has issues I am pretty sure the response from other editors would be "Well, fix it". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: An article does not have to have GA status. I do not care if this particular article has that status, but I care about maintaining the GA standards. When editors are improving articles, some will look at GAs to use as examples on what to do. If an editor looks an article which has fallen before the standards, they might incorporate bad habits into their article which would take reviewers longer to fix.

When an editor says "Just fix it" they are stating to the reviewer "Go dedicate hours of your time, away from articles that you want to work on to fix up this article that the original GA nominator did not want to fix up themselves." This is why I get defensive when I read this comment. If someone wants to fix up the article, that's great! I'm happy to conduct a re-review once the article meets the criteria again. But I will not be the one who devotes hours of work to improve this article because I have other articles I want to work on instead. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Ok thank you for this information. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also trying to correct unreferenced statements. There are still some in Applications, Compounds and Production... working on it. Recon rabbit 17:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this - apologies for the delay this weekend but I am away from the library that gives me access to a lot of sources I need for these fixes. Recon rabbit 23:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I think that the uncited statements have been dealt with. If the lead is still considered too short, I can work on that too. Recon rabbit 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit I expanded the lead after the first post here by @Z1720 Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit and Johnjbarton: The lead should be a summary of the most important contents in the article, which I interpret as including information about anything that is a level 2 heading. I do not see any information about its production or safety in the lead. I also think the second and third paragraphs might be combined together. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in better shape, I think. Though, there are some things that stick out to me when reading through the article. The length of some of the sections make me think "there should be more to Zirconium then what we have written down here", but it's fairly consistent with Ullmann's encyclopedia, so what do I know... Recon rabbit 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton:@Z1720: John: 2.5 irreverent comments: (1) you will find that when some editorial decision is to be made with a geeky chemistry article that often all sorts of editors show up and offer sometimes strong opinions. These editors, some of whom are fairly senior, often are inexpert about the subject being debated, but they still offer advice. (1.5) One encounters a similar phenomenon if you want to formally eradicate a really dumb article (AfD): people who know the least will offer the most advice. Solution: redirect really bad articles into oblivion. (2) this Good article nominations business can be infuriating. One can ends up working hard to satisfy those judging the GAN. Often of these final changes do not materially improve the article's utility to readers (which is the real goal here). So, the question is whether to spend many hours addressing that final 0.1% of a GAN or just fix up some really bad article on an important topic. So, here I am offering advice about others offering advice ....--Smokefoot (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hidden content

How can the oxidation state data be edited? It's not in the article and not in Template:infobox zirconium Johnjbarton (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The oxidation states are in here. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why NUBASE 2003?

Why does the article ref both NUBASE 2003 and NUBASE 2020? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is due to lack of updates. 100+ other articles have the same problem. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]