Testwiki:Featured article candidates/Zinc/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 promoted by Karanacs 15:11, 28 April 2009 [1].

---

Zinc

Nominator(s): mav (talk), Stone & Nergaal

Article was de-stubbed and converted to WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers in 2003 and grew larger in true wikistyle for 5 years. The nominators of this FAC have been working on this article for several months now (starting with Stone in October 2008). Of course, many others have helped, especially from WikiProject Elements and commentators during the PR and the article's talk page. We now rate this article to be A-class and believe it exemplify Wikipedia's best work per FA standards. If not, then please tell us what you think should be fixed. mav (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now. It's interesting reading, and I think the coverage is good, but the prose needs some touch-up, and a lot more linking to increase accessibility for less experienced readers. Hopefully the comments below will help. Sasata (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Thanks for making all the changes. Looks like FA quality to me now. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "...of the group 12 of the periodic table." "the" is extraneous (this is repeated later in the article)

  Fixed. --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Zinc is chemically similar to its neighbor copper and, due to having similarly-sized ions, magnesium." Awkward structure with subject isolated at end of sentence.

  I couldn't find a good cite for the copper part, so I changed that to: "Zinc is chemically similar to magnesium because it has a similarly-sized ionic form." --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  And it's not much like copper anyway jimfbleak (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• some words I think should be linked in the lede (keeping in mind the high school student who'll be reading this): ions, isotopes, ore, alloy

  Good point. Fixed. --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• conversely, I thing the following should not be linked: Roman, India, Europe

  Looks like somebody else already did that. --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Zinc production includes roasting, leaching and, at the end, pyrometallurgic winning or electrowinning." some issues: roasting is incorrectly linked (I lol'd when I saw where it went); what does winning mean in this context? Isn't there another less ambiguous term that could be used (extracting)? Isn't the phrase "at the end" obvious and extraneous?

  Yum - roasted zinc on an open fire! Argh. Changed to: "Zinc production includes roasting, leaching and then extraction." --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  Now it says "Zinc production includes roasting, leaching and then extraction." Except according to the leaching article, leaching is another word for extracting, so there now appears to be a redundancy in this sentence.

  Changed to: "Zinc production includes froth flotation of the ore, roasting and final extraction using electricity." --mav (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Work by Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta uncovered the electrochemical properties of zinc." Since you're giving a synopsis of zinc's history in this paragraph, give a date for G & V's work.

  "by 1800" added. --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "...such as the alcohol dehydrogenase in humans." "the" not needed (or say "the enzyme")

  Fixed. --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Consumption of higher concentrations of zinc can cause..." "Higher concentrations" has a specific meaning in chemistry that I don't think is completely appropriate here. Perhaps replace "higher concentrations of" with "excess"?

  Good idea. Done. --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "A variety of zinc compounds are used industrially," Aren't some of the examples given commercial rather than industrial (eg. deodorants, shampoos)?

  Changed to: "A variety of zinc compounds are commonly used," --mav (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics

• "...is a bluish-white, lustrous, diamagnetic metal" suggest unlinking metal (should be obvious to the reader by now)

  Done. --mav (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• shouldn't temperatures be also be given in degrees Fahrenheit with the convert template?

  We generally don't do that in the prose of element articles and Celsius is linked. All per MOS Celsius is also particularly useful in chemistry; esp compared to the the F temp scale, --mav (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Soil contains an average of 64 ppm, but actual soils have 5–770 ppm zinc." How is "actual soil" different than soil?

  Changed to: "Soil contains an average of 64 ppm but different soil types can contain 5–770 ppm zinc." --mav (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've tightened to Soil contains 5–770 ppm of zinc with an average of 64 ppm jimfbleak (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• link ppb

  Looks like somebody already has. --mav (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Seawater has only 30 ppb zinc and the atmosphere contains 0.1 to 4 µg/m3." How about converting the latter measurement also to ppb for a facile water to air comparison?

  Ack - math! To solve that, I'd have to know how many molecules there are in a cubic meter of air, no? Ideal gas law and Avogadro's number comes to mind but my source for the 0.1 to 4 µg figure does not specify if this is an average for the whole atmosphere or at sea level (not to mention temperature). --mav (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  I was thinking of a calculation using STP, but if the source doesn't specify the source of its values, then I guess this isn't possible. Sasata (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• link base metal, nucleon, tarnish, passivating

  Somebody beat me to it. --mav (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Compounds and chemistry

• link electronic configuration

Somebody already did that. --mav (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "When compounds in the +2 oxidation state are formed the s electrons are lost," Perhaps clarify "...outer shell s electrons are lost"

  Ick - shells. Close enough, so fixed anyway. --mav (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "...readily form complexes with N- and S- donors." Link N and S. In the next sentence, pipe in a link to coordinate covalent bond

  Fixed. --mav (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• link amphoteric, precipita

  Already done by somebody else. --03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The first such compound, decamethyldizincocene," First in what sense? First formed when heated as described? Please clarify.

  Hm. I can't claim that sentence but removed the 'first' clause. Now the sentence seems to hang... So I moved it to the zinc-carbon paragraph. Time for bed. I'll take on more of your comments after work on Wednesday. ---mav (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

History

• link condenser

• "The word is probably derived from the German Zinke, and supposedly meant "tooth-like, pointed or jagged part" and, as metallic zinc crystals are needle-like." The latter part of this sentence is grammatically confusing.

improved. n

Changed to: "The word is probably derived from the German Template:Lang, and supposedly meant "tooth-like, pointed or jagged" (metallic zinc crystals have a needle-like appearance)." --mav (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "In Britain, Dr. John Lane is said to have carried out experiments, probably at Landore, prior to his bankruptcy in 1726." Honorific unnecessary; what kind of experiments?

  chnged to: experiments to smelter zinc

• "...horizontal zinc smelter in Belgium, which processes even more zinc." -> processed

  Done

Production

• link gangue, hydrophobicity

• "...used to get a ore concentrate." a->an

Done

• "A final concentration of zinc of about 50%..." -> "A final zinc concentration of about 50%"; sulpher misspelt

  Done

• "Roasting converts the zinc sulfide concentrate produced during processing to zinc oxide." ... mention "... as in the following reaction:" Same thing with the following examples, I think a colon should be used to unite the explanatory sentence with the subsequent reaction equation.

  Done. --mav (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• link slag

• "Levels of zinc in rivers flowing through industrial or mining areas can be as high as 20 ppm." Perhaps, for comparison, the acceptable output levels from a water treatment facility could be given for comparison to help the reader appreciate how high 20 ppm really is.

  Hm. That figure is 5000 ppm per U.S. standards but the discharge will almost always be vastly diluted. I think it is much better to focus on what is harmful to organisms that live in rivers so I added "Concentrations of zinc as low as 2 ppm adversely effects the amount of oxygen that fish can carry in their blood." --mav (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Applications

• "With a electrochemical potential..." a->an; "zinc makes a good material" -> zinc is a good material

  Done

• link ductile, corrosion resistance

• "These properties make it useful in communication equipment, hardware, instruments," What kind of instrument? (musical? surgical?)

  The source just says 'instruments' without qualification but I think it is safe to state 'musical' so I did. --mav (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "In 1994, 33,200 tons..." needs convert template

• added Template:Convert

• I'm pretty sure that USGS ref meant short tons when it stated 'ton' in the source doc b/c 'metric ton' is used separately and spelled out specifically. So I changed it to Template:Convert. --mav (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hm. On second thought, the first use of any "ton" in the USGS doc is 'metric ton' and then it gives a figure in ambiguous "tons" that is percent decrease from the "metric ton" figure that works mathematically. So "ton" looks to be in fact mean "metric ton / tonne". Changed back. --mav (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• link viscosity, titanium, catalyst; link to the more specific organic synthesis, rather than chemical synthesis

• "opperate" misspelt

• "Zinc pyrithione is used as in antifouling paints." remove "as"

• link propellant, transmute, tracer

• "...physical phenomena such as the wearing out of alloys..." underlined part awkward construct

  Changed to: "Zn-65 is also used as a tracer to study how alloys that contain zinc wear out.." --mav (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "...although studies differ on effectiveness." Rather, "studies disagree as to its effectiveness" or something like that.

done. n

• "In larger amounts, taken as zinc alone in other proprietaries," -> Sentence construction sounds awkward

  Changed to: "Zinc also helps speed up the healing process after an injury." --mav (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "... it can protect against rash." Pipe link to the more specific diaper rash

• "Zinc salts are effective against pathogens in direct application." This is too vague... what kind of pathogens? What medical disorder?

  Changed to: "Zinc ions are effective antimicrobial agents even at low concentrations." --mav (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Biological role

• "...90% of that is excreted through the intestines..." Vague... why not say "excreted in the feces" or something?

  changed to sugested form

• "Zinc is transported through the blood by albumin and transferrin" Specify that these are proteins.

  changed by adding proteines

• link blood plasma

• "The most-important types of protein..." remove hyphen

• "..two examples are metalloenzyme and zinc finger, respectively." Pluralize enzyme and fingers

  changed to sugested form

• "Alcohol dehydrogenase uses zinc in the liver to metabolize alcohol." Better is "The liver enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase uses zinc to metabolize alcohol."

  changed to sugested form

• pipe "conformation" to "protein structure"

• "Cells in the salivary gland, prostate, immune system and intestine use zinc signaling." What is zinc signaling?

  Added ".. as one way to communicate with other cells" to end of that sentence to give context. --mav (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The Free Ion Activity Model (FIAM)..." Perhaps remove the acronym, as it isn't used again in the article.

• "...may interfere with the utilization of copper and iron" utilization -> use (learned that one from Tony1!)

I believe the more awkward term is actually appropiate here. n

I understand the reason for that general rule but 'utilization' is the technically correct term here. --mav (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Several other cases are reported of humans..." are->have been

  changed to have been

• "...causes a severe hemolytic anemia, and also liver or kidney damage..."

added an and

• "Storing fruit juices in galvanized cans has resulted in mass poisonings of zinc." Humans or parrots? Also, subject misplaced (reads like zinc was poisoned)

• cows milk -> cow's milk

• References needs a MOS makeover: page ranges should be specified by pp. (not p.); conversely, single pages should be given by p. (not pp.); page ranges need endashes, not hyphens; ref #30 has a busted link; ref #34 has a stray bracket, and In situ probably needs to be italicized; some article titles have all words capitalized, others don't; etc.

most of these were fixed. n

Thank you for such a detailed review. I will start to address each point after work today (in about 10 hours). --mav (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mav, I have given the refs a quick formatting cleanup for p vs pp and endashes in page ranges (I left the weird CRC page numbers alone, but added an inline query RE a particularly odd one). Maralia (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool - thanks. :) I'll look for your comment. --mav (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the remaining comments. Nergaal (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another question: who (i.e. what countries) are the world's largest consumer of zinc (some numbers if possible, please) Sasata (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be more than a factoid as it doesn't really matter. But anyways, I bet it is US, as pretty much any other raw product that is consumed in the world. Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 5 (Scoffern...) needs a page number

added page numbers 591-603

• inconsistency with use of pp. or p.
  • Page ranges are preceded by pp. Individual pages are preceded by p. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Current ref 88 (Samans...) needs a page number

page # does not apply for this reference. n

• Current ref 97 (Blew) is this a book? If so we need a publisher and page number. If it's not, we still need a publisher.

  publisher: Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory added

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look once I'm done addressing Sasata's comments. --mav (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• Ref formatting checks out fine with WP:REFTOOLS
• Fix the 1 disambiguation link (I'm not sure whether the tool is incorrect, however)
• External links check out fine with the links checker tool--Truco 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

comments jimfbleak (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sphalerite, a zinc sulfide, is the most important zinc ore and zinc is the 24th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Personally, I'd put abundance before the ore

done. n

• Although zinc has been used in the copper-zinc alloy brass since Roman... is a bit clunky, what about something like Although zinc has been alloyed with copper to make brass since Roman...

that would change the meaning completely. nevertheless, I have altered the sentence. is it better now? n

• The ionic radii of zinc and the magnesium

• deleted the

• Because of this some of their salts to have the same crystal structure

• deleted to

• Palestinian brass from the 14th to 10th centuries BC contains 23% zinc.[40] The Book of Genesis, written between the 10th and 5th centuries BC,[41] mentions Tubalcain as an "instructor in every artificer in brass and iron" (Genesis 4:22). Lead implies, incorrectly, that Romans were first to make brass

• Only archeologica prove might be able to clearify what Tubalcain might have been. It is likely to be brass, but only Roman artefacts have been found as ariological sound oldest items.--Stone (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The brass article says Brass has likely been known to humans since prehistoric times, even before zinc itself was discovered. Romans are not prehistoric jimfbleak (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A abstract from an article from 1978 [2] states that it was known since 1000BC in asia minor and from 700BC by the Greek and later by the Etruscans. A quote is: but very few Greek Cu alloys and only two Etruscan ones contain Zn.. Makeing it likely that these samples of brass where only produced by chance. The deliberate production started between 20BC and 30AD and was driven by development of metalurgic process by the romans. We might add deliberate production to the lead. --Stone (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I added this to the first para to make that more clear: "Various isolated examples of the use of impure zinc in ancient times have been discovered." And changed the sentence in the lede to: "Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc that has been used since at least the 10th century BC." --mav (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

*where there are multiple references, can they be arranged in numerical order?

• I only found two and changed it.

*Postlewayt's Universal Dictionary - I've italicised the title, but I'm not sure if Postletwayt's was part of the title

I checked - it isn't jimfbleak (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• world's largest zinc producer is Nyrstar, does this include China?

• I think China has many but smaller smelters which are not all part of one company.--Stone (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

*GI tract GI = ?

• changed to Gastrointestinal tract

• It is particularly rich in semen odd phrase, better to say semen is rich in zinc

• changed it to the suggested form

• low-birth why hyphen?

• deleted hyphen

• Comment I don't think zinc should be referred to as a transition metal, in my opinion calling zinc, cadmium and mercury transition metals is analogous to calling tomatoes vegetables, essentially a common mistake - at least that was what I was taught through school/University. Maybe it's different in America but according to our article it remains the IUPAC position [3]. Guest9999 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Having gone through a couple of old textbooks I'll have to admit my mistake and concede that the definition inclusive of zinc is at least sometimes used, still if it can be sourced it might be worth mentioning the questionable status in the article somewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• According to WP:MOSNUM, scientific notation should be spaced, preferably by using a template (incorrect example: ... are over 4.3×10¹⁸ and 1.3×10¹⁶ years, ) No left-aligned images under third-level headings per WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images (example at Compounds). Please review WP:OVERLINKing everywhere (examples beef, lamb, lettuce and liver, there are more). We all know what eggs and pregnancy are; the sea of blue is distracting. Faulty WP:DASHes throughout the citations; I'll ping User:Brighterorange. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody changed the left aligned images and I substituted the 3 scientific numbers by the val template.--Stone (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Much overlinking now gone. --mav (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support It looks like the problems are fixed to me--it is a well cited article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment One of the references, (Perry, Handbook of Inorganic Compounds) seems to have a dodgy ISBN. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• changed from 0-8492-8671-3 to 0849386713. --Stone (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Comments. I reviewed this article when it was in PR. However I still found problems:
  1. Chalcophiles formed as the crust solidified under the reducing conditions of the early Earth's atmosphere. The meaning of this sentence is not clear for me. Chalcophiles (chemical elements) were produced in the interiors of stars, and can not be produced on Earth.
  2. eventually forming a protective passivating layer of the basic zinc carbonate, Zn5(OH)6CO3, Here 'zink carbonate' links to the article about different carbonate (ZnCO3). It is better to call Zn5(OH)6CO3 hydrocarbonate.
  3. When compounds in this oxidation state are formed the outer shell s electrons are lost The electrons are lost only when ionic compounds form. They are not lost when covalent bonds form.
  4. Zinc sheet metal is used to make zinc bars. Is this peculiar use so important to be mentioned in the article?

Ruslik (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• (1.) would it help: Chalcophile element compounds formed as the crust solidified under the reducing conditions of the early Earth's atmosphere. --Stone (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• (2.) changed the link from zinc carbonate to Hydrozincite.--Stone (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• (3.) would it help to substitute lost by used for the chemical bonds.--Stone (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  (1) Actually sulfides formed, not all compounds (2) Ok (3) The proposed wording will not fit the second part of the sentence. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  Chalcophiles are translated to be elements which are sulfur loving. But why not change it to Sulfide ores were formed as the crust solidified under the reducing conditions of the early Earth's atmosphere. or Sulfides were formed as the crust solidified under the reducing conditions of the early Earth's atmosphere.--Stone (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  (1) changed Chalcophiles to: Sulfide ores of tin

  (3) changed to: Zinc ions in this oxidation state exhibit the electronic configuration [Ar]3d¹⁰, in which the two outer shell s electrons are no longer present.

  (4) Deleted Zinc sheet metal is used to make zinc bars. because it is not an important use of zinc--Stone (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but you did not change (1). And why tin? Ruslik (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry : Chalcophiles to: Sulfide ores of zinc

• Support It looks like a lot of problems have been fixed, and as someone who just read through the article, it looks like it is on par with other element pages that have recieved Featured Article status. Most of the remaining issues look to be mainly technical and not substantially detrimental, I say go ahead! --Pstanton (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oppose I think the biological stuff can be improved a fair bit. Having done a bit of work on the biological role section a few months ago, it doesn't seem greatly changed. Several of the top nutrition journals are freely accessible with a 12-month embargo; examples include Journal of Nutrition, American College of Clinical Nutrition, yet instead a generalist book like Emsley's 2001 "A-Z of the Elements" is cited. These books are difficult to verify and offer nothing extra to the interested reader. If we can't find a nice recent review, why not cite the NRC's 2000 report on zinc rather the Emsley? Zinc deficiency is conservatively estimated to effect maybe 25% of the world population and perhaps even 50%, yet the lead does not mention that fact and instead devotes a sentence to zinc poisoning, which is probably rare and largely restricted to occupational settings. It doesn't even mention what zinc deficiency causes (stunted growth, immune dysfunction). (The article doesn't mention prevalence; it cites a 1990 article on zinc toxicity.) Anyway, I'll try to get around to improving that section but for now I think the biological role stuff needs a lot of work. Also, my personal bias is that things in the lead should be cited. There are some uncited statements which need citations in the body, e.g. "Roughly one quarter of all zinc output is consumed in the form of zinc compounds; a variety of which are used industrially". I would like to see a source of the input-output flow of zinc, and this is a place to give that source to the reader. Under Zinc#Isolation of the pure element, 3 sources are cited about John Lane; 2 of them are completely redundant and outdated. Why can't we get a hyperlink on the latest ref there? Although it's still not perfect, my concerns have basically been addressed and it's about par with other FAs. II | (t - c) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I'll start an effort to address your points this weekend. If this article is promoted to FA status before I'm done, then I will make sure to still address your points in a follow-up PR (as I did for plutonium after it was promoted). --mav (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that and congratulate you on the hard work, but I hope it doesn't. It seems like there hasn't been a thorough review of this topic yet to find the best sources. I don't see why an article needs to be raised to FA prematurely. Although a lot of work has been done, the work which remains to be done seems fairly substantial and will require a fair amount of reading and research. I don't see why anyone would want to use a book like Emsley's "A-Z Elements" to describe biology in a FA. Books like these which do not cite sources and appeal to a popular audience can introduce real factual errors; for example, one of the nominators (Stone) asked about fluoride's biological role and Itub found that Emsley's "A-Z" book stated the totally false claim that fluoride was essential and that laboratory rats suffered when they received no fluoride. Yes, a 1973 article found that rats suffered, but as described in fluorine deficiency, it was refuted in 1976 and in 1997 the NRC stated that fluoride is not an essential nutrient, although it is beneficial to the teeth (mainly through topical exposure). This is well-recognized, although there are some people who, like Emsley, get confused and think that fluoride was among the elements described in Mertz's classic article. Emsley does not cite his sources inline and should be totally avoided as he is unreliable. II | (t - c) 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Damn - I already had to toss "History and use of our earth's chemical elements" by Krebs due to bad info in it (some parts really bad). As for Building Blocks; one would think that since Oxford University Press published the book and that Emsley is a professor of chemistry there would be some guarantee of quality. I guess not, at least when it comes to biology. I'll keep that in mind as I use that book in the future. As to promoting FAs that still have objections; it happens all the time. Neither perfection nor unanimity is required to become an FA. However, I highly respect the work that reviewers put into their reviews and I always try to address valid concerns and give good reasons why I think other points are not valid - even if the article has already received its star. I see that you are currently editing zinc so I will work on something else until you are done for the day. So far, the work done by you and Stone looks good. --mav (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like the lead issues you mentioned are fixed now and many of the Emsley refs have been replaced. Still more work to do but the section does look better. Thanks for your edits so far. :) --mav (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Two of my references, Greenwood and Cotton, both have good sections on the biological role of zinc. I'll use them to replace the remaining Emsley refs. --mav (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• First cut done. No more Emsley refs in Biological role section and more info added about zinc fingers and carboxypeptidase added. Please take a look. --mav (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks much better now! Excellent work. 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Images - All are approprietly licenced, however File:Zn-alchemy.jpg may need a ciation for it's content, File:Luigi_Galvani,_oil-painting.jpg should be looking into the text (ie Left side of the page), File:World_Zinc_Production_2006.svg, the caption should explain what the percentages are for (I assume this is of total world production, but it could be other things). Images should be alternated left and right as far as possible per WP:MOSIMAGES, this has been done at the start of the article, but not at the end. Fasach Nua (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Alchemy symbols

• For symbol 3 and 4 Alchemy and Alchemists by Charles John Samuel Thompson p 132
• For symbol 2 Thought signs by Carl G. Liungman p 391
• For symbol 5 Thought signs by Carl G. Liungman p 449
• For symbol 1 ?

Changed caption to Percentage of zinc output in 2006 by countries--Stone (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Zn-alchemy.jpg replaced by File:Zinc-alchemy symbols.png b/c the former looked like copies from the cited website (while I don't think that any representation of such old symbols can be under copyright, the website owner still might make a fuss). File:Luigi_Galvani,_oil-painting.jpg is only slightly looking offscreen and the image is too tall to be left aligned. So not much can be done there. Some changes made to improve left/right image placement but I don't think more can be done beyond that w/o having left aligned images directly below section headings, which is even a more serious breach of MOS. -- mav (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

From "Isotopes":-

The most common decay mode of an isotope of zinc with a mass number lower than 64 is electron capture. The decay product resulting from electron capture is an isotope of copper.

$\underset{n}{\overset{}{30}}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{n}+e^{-}\to {}_{29}^{n+1}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{u}$

Is this equation supposed to represent electron capture? Electron capture should not increase the atomic mass. The reference provided does not state the daughter nuclide. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The demonstration of beta decay shows the same problems; the mass should not change, and the reference is unhelpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and edits. Nergaal made some edits after you did but I'm not sure if those address your concerns. I'll have time to review everything this weekend. --mav (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "math" format looks better than Nergaal's default format. In particular, the electron format Template:SubatomicParticle looks awkward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I can clarify the equation. In electron capture a nuclear proton is converted into a neutron, Hence the atomic number decreases (one less proton in the nucleus) and the neutron number increases, but the atomic mass is virtually unchanged as n and p have almost identical masses. Petergans (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In the article this equation is used Template:Nuclide + Template:SubatomicParticle → Template:Nuclide --Stone (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nergaal changed the equation after my comment above. I think that the original format style ("math" format) looks better than the current style. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are one edit behind. Petergans changed it to math style already.--Stone (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Petergans repeated the mistake that I pointed out above. The format is now back in Nergaal's style (not "math" format). Ideally, I would appreciate a comment from Nergaal regarding the use of "math" format. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

TEX-style or plane text, from my experience the chemists do not use the TEX-style in chemical equations, while the physics guys use it. (in German wiki most of the chemical equations are in TEX-style). But it is more a question of consensus than on principle problem. And with the problem of isotop conversion and radiation it is more a physics problem and the use of TeX-style is OK. The transuranium elements have mosdt equations in TeX-style.

• Template:Nuclide + Template:SubatomicParticle → Template:Nuclide
• $\underset{n}{\overset{}{30}}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{n}+e^{-}\to {}_{29}^n\mathrm{C}\mathrm{u}$

Object -

• it doesn't even mention basic info on the world zinc market, aside from the production aspects.

Status: Not Done

• "Zinc is the 24th most abundant element.." "Zinc makes up about 75 ppm (0.007%) of the Earth's crust, making it the 24t.." - as soon as a saw "Zinc is the 24th..", I try to find the source, but since that was in the lead, it didn't have an inline citation. in any event, the citation later on leads to a not readily available source, so is it possible to link to a online source? wait, that was an unfair question, because it is possible, so better stated, "can you link to an online source so that the info can be readily available and accessible?

The USGS reference gives basically the same numbers, Emsley is a readyly available book and the CRC book is roughly the same number. --stone

The USGS link would work. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Google Books url added. Now anybody can search and find the info themselves. --mav (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Was that added to citation [10] ?? because that still leads to the inaccessible book.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was added to full Emsley reference information in the Bibliography section. Nature's Building Blocks is widespread in libraries and is for sale in any large bookstore. On top of that, the Google Books link allows anybody to search in the book to check facts cited to it. It is not possible to be more accessible for a proprietary book. --mav (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Status: Not Done

• "Zinc is an essential mineral of "exceptional biologic and public health importance"" - this is inappropriate. aren't all essential minerals "of exceptional biologic... importance"? what makes this particular sentence special that it is included?

  It's well-supported by the freely-accessible reference provided. All essential minerals are important, but not all can be called exceptionally important because of their relationship to many biological functions. Neither are all essential nutrients exceptionally important as public health concerns, since for some deficiencies are uncommon with lesser effects. II | (t - c) 01:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"but not all can be called exceptionally important" - this distinction then should be made clear. "because of their relationship to many biological functions" is moving in the appropriate direction.

• That is a topic sentence which has a cited quote; the sentences that follow explain and back-up that statement. --mav (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

zinc relative to other minerals is what is not made clear. "exceptionally important" is in comparison to, and the support statement is not a comparison statement.

Almost all "importants" now gone. --mav (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Status: Not Done

• "The most important application of zinc and the largest use of the metal is as an anti-corrosion agent." - that was back in 1997. are you certain that fact is still relevant today? is there not more updated information?

  Actually, that is such a widely known fact that a reference isn't even needed. But it is repeated in Greenwood's 2006 edition. I'll change that. --mav (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it's not widely known, or remembered. No wonder I am curious about it. An encycopedia is not a judge of what is widely known, it cites its sources.

Are you saying that my grandmother and grandfather knows??? Are you saying a random person would know??? Is that what you're saying??????

It is __NOT__ widely known. You have made an Error. What you said is Inaccurate.

The people with the zic coated garden doors and with the zinc plated autobody in their cars, will think that this is done for anti-corrosion, so for me this is a widly known. --stone

• Ack - Greenwood is already the one cited and there is no 2006 edition yet. Just a 2006 printing that I happen to have. But note that that is a topic sentence and that the specific numbers are given later on that back up this statement; their references are for 2006. --mav (talk)

Yes, later on though... well, if you can't think of better solutions... oh look at the next comment!

• The situation did not change much and USGS is reflecting this. --stone

"The USGS is reflecting this" - then cite the most recent source.

Status: Not Done

The USGS link is in the next sentence already! (giving 55 for the US) 47 world wide .--Stone (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "An important alloy of zinc is brass, in which copper is alloyed with anywhere" - why is the word 'important' used excessively? somewhere on wikipedia likely one of the guidline pages, it says something similar to the idea that importance is shown, not stated. it's easy to say that something is important; this last sentence was important..

  Important can be substituted by widly used or ....... --stone

Apparently, the term "important" is being used frequently in this article... basically use a much more specific term than the general and vague 'important'

Status: Not Done

This was changed some time ago to A widely used alloy of zinc is

• "It is believed to possess antioxidant properties, which protect against premature aging of the skin and muscles of the body, although studies differ as to its effectiveness.[114] Zinc also helps speed up the healing process after an injury.[114] Zinc gluconate glycine and zi.." - the sentence arrangement here is, for lack of a better word, bad.

Status: Not Done

• There are dead internal links like Zinc lactate. Should they be kept?

  That is a valid topic that should have an article. I'll see about stubbing some of the more important red links. --mav (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, i'm just surprise it doesn't have an article.

Status: Not Done

• "Zinc is an essential trace element which is necessary for plant[122] and animal life,[123] including microorganisms.[124]

The human body ha" - you can't have a one sentence paragraph; i'm sure this breaks some guideline in MOS.

Made the two things one para.--Stone (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this breaks some guideline of MOS though, but prehaps it's safe to say that the editors of this article don't have style? if an editor has style, please refine the rest of the article.

Status: Done Seriously, one sentence paragraphs in an encyclopedia?...

• "Precautions" - the precautions section is given undue weight relative to the other sections, and it is of lesser impact.

  This is a standard section per WikiProject Elements format. I'm not sure what you are getting at since giving undue weight and having a lesser impact seem to be contradictory... --mav (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  huh? how is it contradictory? the notion that a section should not that is given undue weight (more weight than it should have) when it's of lesser impact is perfectly logical.

  For me this relative harmless and only modest toxic element needs a precaution section which is making the point that there are cases of intoxivation, but only if you swallow handfull of pennies, and this is perfectly acchieved by this section. Even for elements which are nontoxic, like helium, we have a precaution section. --Stone (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "external links" - for the external links section, i've ran across better sites in the past. the external

links can be improved by being more selective. Status: Not Done

other comment: being quite bore of adding additional points, this is the last: the reading of some parts would be described as "choppy" WhatisFeelings? (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I'll start to address your points soon. --mav (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well... at least you're appreciative that i must suffer this article; i'll accept that as a modestly refined token. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment reference 130 produces red text at the bottom of the page. Mm40 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm taking a look at the references. One problem that I notice is the difficulty in citing specific pages from CRC, as each page has the section number followed by the page within that section, such as 4-94. To users who are not familiar with the difference between hyphens and endashes, this will be confusing. The worst example I found was 12-11–12-12, which I had to read several times before getting what it meant. This problem is compounded by the fact that a hyphen and an endash look the same in the editing window. I have two questions:
  1. Is there a better way to differentiate the CRC section from the page number (such as bolding)?
  2. Would anyone object to replacing all instances of – with & ndash; to make the dashes easier to distinguish in the editing window? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  Bolding of the section numbers is an excellent suggestion. Changing - to an explicit html dash should also help prevent somebody from "fixing" what looks like a page range. --mav (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Both done. I found some oddities:

  • Zinc deficiency: what are the most appropriate interventions? is listed as pp. 347–259.
  • Zinc Toxicity Following Massive Coin Ingestion. is listed as pp. 512–512.
  • Zinc toxicity (new wire disease) in aviary birds is listed as pp. 199–199.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed the three pagenumbers to the right values. The later two are only one page articles.--Stone (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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