Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lead/archive2

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2017 [1].

---

Lead

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

One of those metals with most effect on humans throughout history. I've deeply enjoyed writing the article myself and from some comments I've got so far I see it must be good to read as well. Comments, positive or negative, are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• I'll come back to the intro section later ... for the moment, it looks fine, but I might want to move one or two points up to the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Not too important but: you use semicolons where commas would be better, in many cases.
• "lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor from 3000 BC, from 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; and in Athens, Carthage, and Sicily": That's not what "from" means in AmEng. ("were first worked ... in 3000 BC") Also, did it start in 2000 BC in Athens? If not, add "later" or something.

A good one, thank you; "since" seems more natural anyway.

It's hard to say when exactly it began in Athens; the source is only clear on Asia Minor and Iberia. I found a source, however, that claims the trade had extended to Greece by 1600 BC. Added this and updated the reference.

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very accessible and a pleasant read, for a chemistry article. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and for your go-over with this article; it was quite good and made the prose a tad more concise.--R8R (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• My first comment is that the "Main isotopes of lead" table is a complete duplicate of the "Most stable isotopes of lead" so it is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a part of a general discussion of a reform of the element infobox. It seems the isotope table is up to go from the main infobox or there will be a small table in the main infobox and a separate big table, not entirely sure. Now, however, that the tables are still exactly the same, I removed it from the main infobox for the time being.

I object the removal. An infobox is supposed to summarize information from the article (body), so a repetition can and should be expected. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, R8R Gtrs: I formally propose (request) to re-add the isotopes to {{Infobox lead}}. Per WP:INFOBOX, it should summarize the article, and so repeating info that is in the body is by intention. One could propose to change that infobox header into 'Main isotopes' (not 'Most stable'), and adjust the list. To be clear: the table in the article section 'Isotopes' should be there to make the section complete & better by itself, not to replace an infobox function. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is fair enough to be in the article body, but with more information. If any short lived isotopes are natural, they should be there. Other columns could be added such as spin or exact isotopic mass.

• "Many pseudohalides are known." → "Many lead pseudohalides are known." so that sentence can stand alone.

Yes, done.

• Plumbane is not an organic compound, even if it is an analog of methane. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "The lead analog of the simplest organic compound, methane, is plumbane." Leaving plumbane in the organic section, though, because it is commonly discussed with the organolead compounds.

• "lead commonly used as the whitener" is not strictly correct as it was a compound. could this be reworded?

I used "in."--R8R (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Image check
  • File:Red-lead-unit-cell-3D-balls.png has no description, though one could be generated from the title.

Added one based on the caption in the article.

• • File:Lead production graph.svg has been copied with a mirror image from fig A of http://www.precaution.org/lib/greenland_ice_evidence_of_ancient_lead_pollution.19940923.pdf, so I strongly suspect a copyright infringement despite the licence given. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am quite confident this is not a subject to copyright, as it is a very simple graph of numeric data. There are licenses for such simple graphs if I recall correctly. Will check in a few hours.

I believe the original image would go under commons:Template:PD-text; from that perspective, I think, licensing must be okay?--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am unconvinced. The actual text used, where it is placed on the graph, how it links to the graph points, the graph points themselves, the numbers on the scales are all part of a creative choice in making the whole graph. If the text was arranged in a different way, then you could get away with the PD-text for the text, but the graph still has quite a bit more creative elements subject to copyright. You can compare with the alterations in File:Evolution production plomb.svg which I think are OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look now. I am not sure if this is an aesthetical gain, but the alterations must be sufficient?--R8R (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is better. I would also convert 10⁰ to 1 as it is a bit obscure, and 10² could go to 100 as it can fit. Also BP should probably change to a year as BP numbers is changing all the time! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

We could fit even 1,000,000; but for logarithm-based scales, it's just plain easier to see the trend "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6" than "1--100--10^4--10^6"; when put before such a sequence, first first take half a second to transform that back to "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6". This wouldn't be the case in any other context, but here, I think we should leave the powers as they are. Also, there is a convention about that BP that indicates the numbers will stay as they are (I was surprised, too!).--R8R (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• • File:Evolution production plomb.svg shows enough originality in the graph to not violate http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/ContentPages/953681807.pdf#page=8
  • All images have a suitable free licenses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead image is a picture of the day, and one of the best available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • alt text for "The Holsinger meteorite" should not call it a "meteor"

Fair; done.

• • alt text for the flame test could be a bit more descriptive (for blind people) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Expanded; should be good now.

• • alt text for lead(II) oxide calls it "red powder" but it looks more like cream powder.

Yes, we used to have a different picture there and this must be a remainder. Done.

• • alt text for Chart of the final part of the s-process can be much improved perhaps to say what element transmutes to what. It is not a "greed".

I see I have misunderstood the idea of what should be in alt text; now, I've read WP:ALT and things are clearer to me now. The new alt text must be better.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• • for File:Elemental abundances.svg the alt text appears to be for something else.

Why? It is a line chart and the line indeed generally declines to its right?

Sorry, I meant to delete this comment Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• • alt text for the Promotional poster should say what is in it. (boy with paint brush, and perhaps all the text in the ad)

I expanded it a bit; please see if it's good now.

• • alt text for Radiography of a swan says it is X-ray like, when in fact it is an X-ray!

Ha ha, you're right! Fixed.

• • There appears to be no alt text for the lede image in infobox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Added.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• number MOS violation in infobox −23.0·10⁻⁶ should be −23.0×10⁻⁶

Done.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• According to MOS we should Link the first use of unfamiliar units: eg nΩ·m GPa (I note MPa is linked to Megapascal) neutrons/(cm²·second). I don't think we need to do this in the infobox where the property is linked as that link also covers the unit, but in the article text it should have a link.

I linked "nΩ·m" to ohm and meter; "GPa" to pascal (unit) (removing the MPa link); did not link "neutrons/(cm²·second)" to anything because there is nothing to link to and I think it's fair to say, nothing needs to be linked (it's quite intuitive: "per second per square centimeter").

Actually the first use, now "nanoohm-meters", is not linked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly should've been more careful about this one. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• "They may be made by the addition of trimethyllead or triethyllead to alkenes or alkynes; these precursors may themselves be made from the corresponding lead halides and lithium aluminium hydride at −78 °C." This sentence may be true, but it appears that this is not the way that tetraethyllead was made. Trimethyllead or triethyllead appear to be ions or part of other compounds, not that important that they need a mention in the element article, so I suggest removing the sentence or replacing it. That sentence also makes the following "These compounds" unclear.

Removed, as this seemed most appropriate.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• "tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound" should be a standalone sentence as it is not related to its oxidising properties. Perhaps it should be moved up to the other bits on tetraethyllead.

It is related: I thought the current wording "The oxidizing nature of many organolead compounds is usefully exploited: lead tetraacetate is an important laboratory reagent for oxidation in organic chemistry;[80] tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound.[81]" hints at that very well. Put an "and" instead of the semicolon to clarify it further.

• "Retrieved 2017-01-30" and "Retrieved 2017-04-12" dates in wrong format

Fixed.

• What symbol should be used in formulae to link molecules together? Is it "•" or "·". Personally I like "•" as it is easier to see. But whatever is used it should be consistent.

Used the former for the same reason.

Now I see there is inconsistent use of "•" or "·" for multiplication in units as well.

It didn't occur to me I'd also have to look in the infobox. I've turned to the smaller dot, which is in the infobox right now, because maybe some articles have complied with it as well, in which case I don't want to ruin it.--R8R (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Pb₅Sb₄S₁₁" is messed up, in one place it appears to have spaces, and another new-lines. The Chem template is trashing it somehow by adding some sort of separator before each number. It is important to not insert separators for the case that the text is copied and used elsewhere or a "find" is used to look for something on the page. Either the Chem template can be fixed, or it should not be used in featured articles.

I do not see spaces added in my desktop nor in mobile view. But I do see "Pb 5Sb 4S 11" when copy/pasting (and I removed newlines here). That is by {{Chem}} indeed. Best is to avoid {{Chem}}. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Converted all formulas to the plain sup-sub style.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• In "PbCO₃" it inserts a space before the 3. (same template:Chem problem)

Same.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• In the last sentence "The fungus Aspergillus versicolor is effective at removing lead ions.[252] Several bacteria have been researched for their ability to reduce lead, including the sulfate-reducing bacteria Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum, both of which are highly effective in aqueous solutions." "reduce" is used in two different senses, chemical reduction, and making the amount smaller. We should probably ahve two different terms so that people do not think that lead-II is converting to elemental lead-0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A great catch; done.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Do we need a Farenheit conversion in "tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C (210 °F)" as other temperatures for reactions are not converted from °C.

Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I had my doubts about "bis(disyl)plumbylene" being correct, so I checked the reference and the name is not there. Searching google scholar does not find it, and on Google it is mostly mirrors of this page. So this name need to be fixed or dropped. It probably should have "bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl" in the name perhaps bis(bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl)plumbylene (or lead)

I'll prefer dropping because such long formulas need to be mentally reconstructed back into their formulas anyway.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• In "forty-three lead isotopes" normally the number wold be written using digits: 43 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, done.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• The unit-cell size is missing (from infobox). This only needs one number since it is a cubic structure.
• A question about other registries: In chemical articles we include chemspider and pubchem and possible some other registry numbers in the infobox, not just cas. Should this happen for elements too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll contact the WikiProject to work out a project-wide solution.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

These both questions cover essentially all of the elements (both would require alternations to {{infobox element}}). Can we be satisfied for the purposes of this standalone review with the fact that the discussion on the matter has been initiated?--R8R (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• There are two different punctuations in "lead-acid" and "lead–acid". The former used in a reference and the latter in text. I suspect that nothing has to change though.

There was one hyphen occurrence---in a quote---so I checked there is actually a hyphen in the original and left it as was.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• "osmium— the densest metal" has space after mdash. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• "profile" as used in Bairagi reference: Does it really use the typographic ligature "fi" instead of "fi"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't; strange. Anyway, I removed the ligature.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Toxfaqs" is inconsistently capitalized. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Now starting review of references.

• My first comment is that I really do not like the two level references. I would much prefer to see one click from the text footnote to the full reference. The only place for double barreled referencing is where you have different requirements for page numbers from the same reference. In any case I will review the end references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

When this new referencing system was being first introduced to the article, I was uneasy, too. What convinced me is that references look nicer and actually are available in one click (and one hover). I find that okay because when I want to know something about a ref, this is exactly what I do with it in general.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You must have enable some extension for hover to work like that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I just tried it on my smartphone. Yes, you have to suffer two taps.

I decided to check if other articles can do with just one, and I looked for a random wikilink to click and check. The link I clicked was Vespasian from one of our notes. The system there is even more complicated but, I believe, still acceptable. So I think we can agree that the current system is acceptable, too? Moreover, this system has happened to grow on me. I do think it has the good looks, which is a reason for a referencing style in first place.

From what I remember, fluorine passed an FAC in 2014 with a similar referencing style.--R8R (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Many reference entries could include more complete names of authors, but mostly all we see is initials. Authors are more likely to be identified properly when using known first name also. THis is useful for when we wikilink to the articles on the authors.

As far as I can see, this is something sort of a personal liking thing. I generally adopted the "Last, F." system because I wanted to give it a try and because I knew it wouldn't hurt me back if I do. Many universities use this in their referencing styles.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• eg "The memory of the women's white faces: Japaneseness and the ideal image of women" missing first1= Mikiko
• We should have authorlink1 etc for notable authors. If we have no notable authors for all the references listed then I wonder have we picked the best ones?

Good call. Will add some.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I just went through the first two columns of the reference list. Added a few links. The third column and journals to be done.--R8R (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• First mention of journals should also have a link to the article on Wikipedia. If this is done then ISSN is not needed for the well known journals.

I generally believe ISSN is not needed for any reference. This is well illustrated by how {{cite journal}} this article heavily relies on doesn't list the |issn= parameter in any of the mentioned layouts in "Most commonly used parameters in vertical format."

As for journals: good one, too, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Journals, as well as publishers, linked.--R8R (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Adsorption profile of lead on Aspergillus versicolor: A mechanistic probing" is a primary reference. Perhaps a secondary is "International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology ISSN 2278-5299 Volume 3, Issue 1: Page No.24-42 ,January-February 2014" Biosorption for metal ions removal from aqueous solutions: a review of recent studies NT Abdel-Ghani, GA El-Chaghaby - Int J Latest Res Sci Technol, 2014 - (Is that journal reputable?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I spent some time wondering if this was the case and then decided I'd go for a different citation with similar content published by ScholarlyEditions. I think this must be good.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• The mentioning of the quasicrystalline lead with two references to Sharma's writings may be undue. They are both primary references, and I cannot see any reviews or textbooks that mention this. A high level article like this should probably not include details like this that are not found in secondary or tertiary references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Could this be re-instated as a note? Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My initial response to a comment suggesting we should delete some information was just that: maybe we could put it in a note. However, I looked this through and the conditions under which it was discovered and it really seems such a minor detail. I am beginning to rethink the need to state that lead could be essential for pigs in trace amounts, because actually, this is super minor, too. A mention by itself gives a lot of credit, probably more than this fact is worth.

I'll take some time to think about it, though; but for now, I think we shouldn't.--R8R (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It could go into some other article (if it exists) such as lead allotropes, solid lead or lead monolyer but not in a high level article like this one. There would be much more content that could be in this article, say on compounds, use, mining, minerals, but we don't have it here as it is too detailed, and can go into other articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That was precisely my line of thinking. I think I agree here. Also, will hide the bioessential stuff.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The line about a reported allotrope of lead was added in response to a question by User:Nergaal on wether there were any such allotropes, noting the many allotropes of carbon, silicon, germanium and tin. Allotrope formation is a distinctive phenomenon in this part of the periodic table, so it was a fair enough question. In all other relevant element articles we mention the existence of allotropes so it'd seem reasonable to do so here. The supporting references are primary so it doesn't warrant more than an 'It was reported in…' note. Of course, with things like compounds, use, mining, minerals, one could go into more and more detail but in this case there is only one allotrope and making a brief mention of it is the kind of high caliber information I hope to see in Wikipedia articles, especially at the FAC level. I'll go ahead and add such a note. I would've done so myself earlier but wasn't in a position to be able to do so. Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Graeme, thank you for your review. It was good as it did tighten the quality. (Again, I am sorry to say this days after the review itself. Please pardon my poor manners.)

Now, is there a question to which you believe you didn't get a satisfying response or is there anything you'd want to add?--R8R (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have not yet finished my reference review. So I am adding plenty to the delay myself! The idea is to determine if the best references have been used. Whether there is undue references used to support unimportant facts. Sometimes we get people keen to promote their own work dropping in a sentence and a reference to themselves. Though I have not seen this on the lead article yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

On the topic of nutrition, an old textbook I have says a lead deficiency sign found in rats is hyperchromic microcytic anemia, and disturbed iron metabolism, but considers it not essential in humans. It covers lead far more as a toxic unwanted element in another chapter.

Sure. I think the article must be good in this respect, but you're very welcome to check this.

As for nutrition, the purpose why we even used to have that info was that importance in mammals may mean importance in humans. By itself, this is a biology-specific fact, very much so. Since we agreed the human info is of little relevance, then so is the animal info. We don't cover animals; nor because this is impossible or too difficult, but because this is unrelatable information for nearly all people and this adds little to the human information, which far nore relatable.--R8R (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

More reference review / source check

A

• Acton: Book, seems to have little editorial input and is a collection of research statements, fact verified 1 use
• Alsfasser: book, should be OK, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
• Amstock: book, exists, 1 use, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
• Anderson: secondary but old from respected magazine, fact confirmed, 1 use
• Ashikari, journal article, is missing info, it actually has a first1=Mikiko issue=1; fact and quote confirmed. (on page=65)

  Done. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• ×Audsley, G. A. Book, exists 1 use; However it contradicts the "fact" in the article; The book says that pipes should be mostly tin, with a smaller proportion of lead, Any use over 25% lead requires an "elastic conscience". also this book says that the material (or how much lead) does not affect the tone. What is affected is the durability, and appearance of the pipes.

I never liked the organ material in the first place. Perhaps now is a great chance to remove it after all.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the reference though. Perhaps the article can say "Organ pipes are often made from a lead alloy." How about that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Australian Mining History Association, fact confirmed; better sources may be available in books; we don't actually know who wrote the web site content, or where they got information from. 1 use

I'll add this source instead: . Here's what I could extract from the Google Books snippet view: "MINES AND QUARRIES. CHAPTER VII. Glen Osmond was brought into prominent notice by its silver-lead mines and its building-stone quarries. Silver-Lead Mines. It is generally accepted that Glen Osmond has the oldest mines in Australia"--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

B

• ×Bairagi doi and pmid correct; species name should be italic. Appears to have 0 uses, so should not be included, and no facts to check;

Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Baird, book, appears to exist, unable to confirm content facts
• →Bastasch, online newspaper; missing full date, which is important: 9 April 2015; fact confirmed. 1 use in a note

Why is full date important? Is it not better now that all references provide the same amount of data information?--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I think I'll rather move to this ref: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition -- and avoid the question.--R8R (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The full date is important because 1 its a newspaper and you may want to find the print edition, and 2, it is connected to the article fact about when it happened.

The first argument makes sense to me. Anyway, as I said, I'll move to the new .gov source. This must be OK, right?--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That ca.gov ref would be OK. For dates in references they should reflect how often the thing is published. For books just a year will do, most journals should have a month, but weekly or daily publications should have a full date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The point that as I see you raise is unambiguity. Makes perfect sense to me and I'll follow. I'll note, though, that this is not really an issue for most scientific journals. They usually also have several issues per year or something. Rarely is the month ever an essential part of the info. That noted, I'll have your comment in mind anytime from now on.

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• →Beard: book; fact confirmed; M. E Beard appears to be the first editor. Second editor S. D. Allen Iske. It looks as if the chapter called "Imputing Lead Sources from Blood Lead Isotope Ratios" was written by Michael B. Rabinowitz.

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Becker primary research article; facts confirmed that it has oxidation state 3; Perhaps our article should mention this is called a "plumbyl radical". I am looking for a review article that covers this... It looks like a book chapter covers this: 10.1002/9780470666975.ch10 title=Stable Radicals: Fundamentals and Applied Aspects of Odd-Electron Compounds publisher=Wiley editor=Robin B. Hicks Year=2010 isbn=978-0-470-77083-2 Pages=381-406. authors=Konu, Jari, and Tristram Chivers. chapter="Stable Radicals of the Heavy p‐Block Elements." This radical is covered on page 391-2 of that. You can keep the discovery primary paper, but it is also good to include a secondary source to prove it is genuine.

Yes, the book covers this; will add.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• ??Beeman missing doi=10.1140/epja/i2013-13050-7 retrieved and url inapprorpiate; primary research/synthesis. 1 use; Facts only partially confirmed, though all significant figures were removed perhaps our article should say 2.3×10²⁵ to 3.4×10¹⁸⁹ years ; each isotope has a wide range, and our article assumes the upper bound years with figures truncated to "1".

I don't understand; what's wrong with the url? As for ranges: the article assumes the lower bound of Pb-204 and the upper bound for Pb-207, both truncated to 1. It seems like an appropriate way to make these numbers a little less precise with the purpose of not fixing the reader's attention on these for too long for a secondary-importance fact that it is.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The link is not needed as doi goes to the exact same page. A url is useful if you can get to read the article somewhere else, such as supplied by the author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. Will remove.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Beiner primary research publication; 1 use; fact confirmed. Try to replace this with a book or review. eg https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yu9_LZ1AD_gC&pg=PA84 Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Key Principles and Approaches By Hanna M. Szczepanowska

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• ×Berdanier reference does not appear to be used, the linked google books page does not appear to mention lead; so it should be dropped.

Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Bergeson one use; This reference is written by a person who appears to be an expert on the legal aspects, and not one the science and health side of things. I would suggest using an alternative medrs quality reference.

  Used the OSHA ref. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• →Bisel, chapter in book reference confirms facts, (and also some others nearby in the text) looks good. 1 use I used this google book URL https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=3xfjyTqqR7IC&q=459#v=snippet&q=459&f=false but it needs transmutation for use here.

Added transformed url.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Bisson, 3 uses; all facts confirmed (although p85 calls this Benue Rift instead of Benue Trough). suitable ref.

There is no difference. It doesn't matter.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• ? Blakemore, book ref 1 use, superconductivity fact confirmed, but information about resistivity and comparison to other metals is not there - needs another reference.

Will add a reference to the CRC Handbook here.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Boltwood, B. B. 1 use. Primary reference. This is basically the person who first suggested that uranium and thorium decay to lead and helium. The reference suggests using the ratio of U to Pb as a dating method. It says nothing about the lead-lead dating or isotopes, so that previous sentence also needs a reference. A secondary or book reference should back this very old reference up with modern figures.

Replaced with a new reference: Levin 2009.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Bremholm 1 use primary research reference; The reference confirms nothing about PbS₂ being a semiconductor, we need another reference.

This semicondictivity is not very useful since these are only stable at high pressures. Will change the claim to this per 1 and Bremholm.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• →Burleson, book ref with one use, confirms lead use as flux for glazing. Looks OK. Could add &pg=23 to the url.

I am not particularly keen on adding &pg=23. We don't do this when we have multiple references to a source and uniformity is nice, I'd say.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think the citation style used here sort of implies not having these links to exact pages. It seems more logically consistent this way.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Bremner, 1 use, book reference, fact confirmed, looks fine
• ?Burbidge, 3 uses, review reference. This is over 100 pages long, so specifying the actual page(s) used would be good. s-process p608-610, r-process also confirmed around page 641. facts confirmed.

Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

C

• de Callataÿ, review article, 1 use, fact confirmed
• ?Casciani, reliable news source, 1 use, confirms statement, but statement in article is unclear " subsequent decreases in crime levels" was not due to exposure, but due to removal of lead.

Reworded; OK now?--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for making you wait for so long. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away from Wiki for a few days (one week at most, most probably less) and then I believe I should be able to return and edit at full strength and I will fix all issues you raise that are worth fixing. If waiting for me is what keeps you from posting more reviews, please don't let it be the reason. I'll be back very soon.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs: I am not actually waiting for you, I have been a bit busy and doing other things in my life. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Charles, primary research article, mentions fact in introduction, 1 use confirmed; a review or book reference would be better.

Replaced w/ a book.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Chia, primary research reference, 1 use, fact confirmed, although most of what was prepared was a Pb(I) dimer. A review would be better.

This one is recent. However, I've found a book replacement, which is three months old now.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• →Christensen book ref, 1 use, fact confirmed, could add page number 867 to url.

  Done already. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Copper Development Association, web site, 1 use, facts confirmed, book may be better
• Cotnoir book reference, should add pg=35 to url, fact mostly confirmed. But alchemical symbol is not on this page. So another reference is needed for 🜪

Symbol ref added.--R8R (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Cox The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance and distribution (should have capital D) book reference with one use in a note, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.

Fixed that "D".--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

D

• Dart Book reference, page links to a section on lead, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
• ?Davidson book reference, uses 87a confirms only part, fails to mention Goldschmidt classification; native occurrence is mentioned on page 5 (so should be page 4 and 5); 87b confirmed; 87c partially confirmed, should also mention copper as an impurity; 158a confirmed, 158b confirmed; 159a, 159b, 159c, 159d confirmed; 162 also needs page 12 to confirm that sulfate is in the sinter; 165 confirmed; 168 - not all impurities end up in solution, as there is also anode slime which accumulates copper, arsenic, antimony, silver, gold, bismuth, germanium. The reference is good for the use given.

Will work on Goldschmidt; mentioned copper; added pages 5 and 12; mentioned that most impurities remain in the solution.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Added a reference for Goldschmidt.--R8R (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?DeKock book source. appears not to confirm content it is cited for. But I cannot be sure.

This one is disappointingly difficult to find a good citation for. I'll hide the fact for now in a hope that one day, a good source will be found.--R8R (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It may yet be more complicated. Tl and Bi are next to Pb on the table and have unpaired electrons, and yet they are still diamagnetic. Clearly something odd is going on down here with the 6p elements, but I have not found a good explanation as to why. This makes me sispect that the true explanation would probably constitute a very large excursion from the text if it were to be found. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• ?Delile primary research article, facts confirmed, but review or book reference would be better. I am unconvinced that we need an exact quote: "unlikely to have been truly harmful".

The quote in question seems to be okay either in or out. We say, "According to archaeological research," and a quote seems appropriate. I won't insist on having it, though.--R8R (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a rare topic, by the way. On my look, I didn't find any review of this. I'm not too surprised and that's why we use a quote and say "according to archaeological research," so that it's clear the matter is not settled yet.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Deltares government report, 1 use, fact confirmed, OK
• Duda, book ref, 1 use, facts confirmed

E

• Emsley, J. book source, isbn appears to be for a 2001 edition. The page 280 does not include the information. ref 208 and 210 appear to be covered on page 226. No edition is specified in reference so what was consulted? I am looking at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yhi5X7OwuGkC

No edition has been specified because I believe the year covers that well. I've corrected the isbn.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• ×Ensafi - primary research article reference with one use; cited fact (Pb2+ is colourless; mostly insoluble) is not confirmed by this article; I suggest that you use a text book. (the first one I checked does not say).

Suggestion taken; using a book now.--R8R (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Eschnauer; 1 use, book source; citation with quote confirmed.
• Evans - journal article, one use, facts confirmed.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

F

• →Finger - book reference, should add page to url, one use, fact confirmed.

I don't think we should. Not in general, but in this current citation style. We treat the information on where in the source the info is found and about the source itself separately. Thus, since the ref info does not include the page info, we shouldn't add it to the url, either.--R8R (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Fiorini - magazine ref, 1 use, partly confirms the facts. OK
• →Frankenburg book ref, should add page number to url, fact confirmed.

  Done already. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• →Frebel book ref, should add page number to url, fact confirmed.

  Done already. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Freeman, primary research article, fact confirmed, review article would be superior.
• Funke, review article, fact confirmed.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

G

• Gale - book ref; 1 use; facts confirmed
• Gilfillan - journal article, 1 use, confirmed.
• Gill - book page, I cannot see this so only AGF.
• →Graedel - web pdf report page, fact confirmed on page 17 (could add page number)

  Page number added. Parcly Taxel 04:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  great!

• Grandjean one use, review article, although our article says stoneware, reference says lead glaze, and its reference (Klein) says earthenware, all meaning slightly different things.
• Greene - web site, 1 use, facts confirmed.
• Greenwood 15 uses! Checking the google book linked, wrong page specified for ref#82 should be paGE 404 ie should be the same as ref77. the 3 citations on ref77 check OK, ref74 OK, ref71 needs page 384-386 to cover facts. ref 64 has wrong page number, should be 381, ref 60 confirmed, ref59 confirmed, ref55 confirmed, 51b and c confirmed, 51a not on the page given.

Corrected.--R8R (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Grout - one use, reliable web page. fact confirmed.
• Guberman, one use, reliable government report. facts confirmed.
• Gulbinska, book, fact confirmed
• Guruswamy one use, unable to check this source; however fact is easily confirmed on random web sites.

  Fixed (see Lansdown). Parcly Taxel 02:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

H

• Hadlington - book reference 1 use, fact confirmed.
• Harbison - reliable book ref, 1 use, fact confirmed.
• Hauser - reliable book/review reference. facts confirmed, can be read at google books https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-4OtDgAAQBAJ
• Hernberg - reliable book reference, 1 use, facts confirmed
• ×A History of Cosmetics from Ancient Times - independent web site, facts partly confirmed. "Venetian ceruse, was extensively used in cosmetics by Western European aristocracy as whitened faces were regarded as a sign of modesty" is not confirmed by this reference.

  This was replaced by two reliable references by R8R. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hodge - secondary reference from the point made, which is confirmed.
• Hong - four uses, journal article, facts derived from background information supported by the study, facts confirmed.
• How does lead absorb radiation like x-rays and gamma rays? - This is an answer off the top of Chris Smith's head, which is not quite 100%. I enjoy Chris Smith and his answers to questions, but they may not be totally right. "Lead atoms are densely packed" is misleading, as atom packing will be higher for many other elements due to their having smaller atoms. But the bit about electron density appears to be correct. Perhaps a better source in a book is available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  Replaced with a page from the Thornton et al. ref. Parcly Taxel 04:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hunt, 1 use, book ref, mostly confirmed, except "Most are less ionic than the compounds of other metals and therefore .. insoluble" (It confirms the insoluble but does not give a reason) Also I see this on page 215 of the google books 2014 edition, which should be the one, s its linked).

  Fixed. Parcly Taxel 07:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

--end of H-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sandbh

• Support on the grounds that it appears to meet, subject to Graeme's astute comments being addressed, all the FA criteria. I've been a significant contributor since being asked by the nominator for help with copy-editing. I particularly enjoyed the History section.
• Re the duplication of the lead "Main isotopes of lead" table as the "Most stable isotopes of lead" table in the main body of the article, this duplication is likely a good thing given Wikipedia articles are commonly viewed on mobile devices. Sandbh (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

At information level: a main infobox is supposed to summarize content of the article body, so some repetition of isotopes is to be expected. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond; thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from DePiep

• My point re isotopes is: -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As noted above (re Graeme Bartlett), I think the infobox should list the most stable isotopes as is common in all element infoboxes. I am surprised by the addition of the comment [2] about decay chains and standard atomic weight specifics, after this FAC-ing. First of all it is textual so should be in lede not infobox (and I find it very hard to understand, of course because so much info is crammed in there), but more relevant: it may be important for lead, but that does not make it infobox-worthy. Also, the second half is more describing the effects on the standard atomic weight, and about not Pb-specific situations -- even less needed in an infobox. This info should be made clear in the section #Isotopes. But as a tertiary decay info --at best-- it is not fitting the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I added it is that it means that the values we list in the infobox for abundances, a:s well as the atomic weight itself, may vary significantly outside the obvious range of variation. I agree that it was too long, but I think R8R has accomplished a skilful contraction that gets t;Isotopes in he main point here (a caveat lector sign, if you will!). Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It now says: "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". True of course, and also superfluous (because A_r already says so; why not added there btw?), generic not Pb-specific (for example, 12 A_r=[interval] elements are much heavier involved into this; missing the word 'Earth'), and not infobox-level: details of the multi-layered concept of standard atomic weight itself, not the element (you'd always have to look this up before it has meaning). Let the section do this job. -DePiep (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it varies this much is absolutely Pb-specific. The variation is small enough that it hasn't yet been changed to an interval, but large enough that you will very easily find samples outside the range given spanning almost the entire gamut from 204 to 208. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

By now, the all-important 'variance of abundance' is well-described elsewhere. End of issue, all fine. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Section Isotopes

Disclosure: recently I've tried to clarify "standard atomic weight" (created the article) e.g. being different from relative atomic mass and having derived values like "conventional value". It occurs to me that these subtleties are not easily recognised or distinguished even by scolars/editors, resulting in imprecise term usage in wikis (including wikidata). However, I understand that I should not push this perfection too far. For now & here, I ask awareness of the issue. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, acknowledged.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• About. Existing text: "(For this reason, the atomic weight of lead is given to only one decimal place.)[36]". While factually correct, I'd like to have this a more pleasant reading. Points:

Removing the () brackets would not disrupt anything IMO, so can be done (no need to make it a sidenote, atomic weight is quite relevant). If it is bracketed, it could be removed. If unbracketed, include it in text flow.

I like these parentheses. They are sort of editorial. I used to try to avoid parentheses in texts whenever possible but I don't anymore. This is a good tool when used right. Here, they smooth the transition from the standard atomic mass talk to the relative abundances change talk. Having them costs nothing, really.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

They have a reading effect, they make a sidenote. Then either it should be a crisp sidenote or a more complete side topic. IMO now it is neither. Always, main effort should be to do without them. If impossible, think & re-read why that is not possible: there is an editorial (write/read) issue in there. With my notes below, pls try to find an improvement for eadability. How does it feel when read aloud? -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)+

Sorry, I cannot clarify enough my points about brackets & reading, too subtle English language. I should leave it then. Maybe John could take a look. For me, it's out of my English lang league. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've lost the parentheses.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, out. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And btw, please do not use "standard atomic mass" (ouch) when I'm near ;-) ;-). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Prefer writing "standard atomic weight" for "atomic weight" (equally correct, but 'atomic weight' is easily confusing, while adding the word 'standard' is removing all confusion easily). Also to check: use of short 'atomic weight' elsewhere, and adequate linking.

OK, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrected in Isotopes; the occurrence in Bulk is vague and we don't need to refer to the standard.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question. The sentence leaves much to be researched (homework), in how the abundances make the atomic weight. Could we have a more direct explanation, for example: "For this reason, the relative atomic mass A_r [not s.a.w.! DP] is x in normal samples and y in thorium ores", "... this variation shows as a large uncertainty in the standard atomic weight: 207.2±0.1".

I need another go to think on this one.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You may know I love making texts accessible. Accessibility is my top priority. I've tried a few times to improve it but I honestly don't see what I could improve. Pretty clear, isn't it? Anyone should be able to handle it. Bonus fact: if a reader has to think something for themselves and then solves it, they're proud of themselves and keep going on, that's what happens often. The obstacle here is not too high; anyone should be able to do it.

Yet if something is actually unclear, please could you specify what it is?--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No I can not specify. My command of English—science—explain is too low, so I drop this. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Question. The source now for this remarkable abundance is: [36] Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 368. I have no access. If G&E adds details (such as various abundance calculations), it's fine. When it mentions just the value, maybe the source be {{CIAAW2016}} or [3], which is by the defining institute IUPAC. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Checked both G&E and CIAAW2016. G&E supports the claim in its entirety; CIAAW does not. No changes are to be made.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable thinking. Will check.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"... CIAAW does not" you say: weird. Alas, I drop it. (Sequence quest would be : what CIAAW report does G&E 1998 use, etc.). Done. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• The section's isotopes table ({{Infobox lead isotopes}}) could/should contain all isotopes mentioned in the text. If so, missing are: lead-209, -111, -112, -114 (all with natural traces).

This is possible. Leaning yes here.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Added all without the decay energies (don't immediately know where to get them and I think we'll get rid of them very soon anyway because we don't use them in the text).--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Decay energies are in the grand table Isotopes_of_lead#List_of_isotopes. For this isotopes infobox, removal of energy column is not discussed (so will stay). -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: this is a full infobox, hired from isotopes of lead. If this would limit good usage here by contradicting requirements between the two articles, a dedicated table could be made for this section. IOW, using that external infobox should not require compromises when writing a FA-level section in article lead. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Isotopes in the top infobox

• The footnote now says "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". That better be like "Isotopic abundances [do] vary significantly".

I disagree here: if they do, then how? We may go for something like "Isotopic abundances vary significantly by sample." Is it OK with you?

OK, even better. Wanted to say: no need for 'may vary': they 'do' vary. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Which isotopes in main infobox: The infobox should give a condensed resume of the article, not a copy. For this, I propose to remove isotope lead-202 from this infobox. As its mentioning shows in section Isotopes, it is an incidental fact not major for this element. (Earlier discussion here).

For the same reason, I'd ask reconsidering listing lead-205 and lead-210, though these could have better reasons to stay in there. I'd claim that having a long half-life alone is not enough (as a characteristic for Pb).

I see your point. Though if we remove all unstable isotopes, then there is no need for a table, as it is equally represented with a short one-line list of stable isotopes. Could we do it?--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If that's the outcome (four stable isotopes only), the infobox should cover it. No reason to feel restricted by this. Not the other way around. (Ask at WT:ELEM for table adjustment, see who responds). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't feel restricted. I am ready to leave only four but we need to reorganize this part of the infobox in that case; otherwise the space will be wasted irrationally. Personally, that's what I'd want to do: only leave primordial isotopes in the infobox, and list only mass numbers and abundances.

If it is something that should be agreed on at WT:ELEM, then here is not the right to raise the issue in the first place.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's simple: the main infobox should only list the main, characteristic, defining, calling isotopes. Then, if the result looks weird, we can change the look (but not the list). That look is maintained element-wide, not ad-hoc for lead. So, if the list only has 4 stable isotopes justified, its OK for this FA. And maybe we should improve the infobox — elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: until some weeks ago, this infobox had headertext "Most stable isotopes of ...", today "Main isotopes of ...". This change relieves the main infobox of the obligation to give a complete list by half-life. Today, we can restrain ourselves to list only the important ones, preferably those as described in the article section Isotopes. My opinion is to be very restrictive here while being as complete as FA-needed in the section. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The reference for standard atomic weight

Is reference [1], for the standard atomic weight of 207.2(1), good enough? The source could be either the 2013 technical report (as it is now, see {{CIAAW2016}}, p. 273/table 1), or the straight webpage. IUPAC should be mentioned? Maybe someone more familiar with referencing could take a look at this. BTW, the source is coded in two infobox templates so a synchronising is needed. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's quite good.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

OK then. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support leaving only the stable isotopes in the Pb main infobox, since they are all much more important than any of the radioisotopes. (Removing some of them but not others doesn't sit well with me, but removing them all is fine).

For general elements, I'm not sure "primordial only" is the best thing, because 35 elements have no primordial isotopes at all. Also, I would want the decay modes at least for the unstable ones: the shortest I could stomach for potassium is "³⁹K, ⁴⁰K (β⁻, β⁺, ε), ⁴¹K", and I would like to see the long half-life too because it is assuredly important enough for the text. So I'd say the primordials make it, plus a few case-by-case exceptions of extreme importance (for example, T, ⁷Be, ¹⁰Be, ¹⁴C, ¹⁸F, ³⁶Cl). But this is off-topic here and we can discuss it elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Other

• The article now uses both BC and BCE. Should be single. In a science article, I'd prefer the more neutral BCE, but I don't know if there is a freedom. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Politely pinging R8R Grts: this question might have been missed so far. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not reacting too fast. Good one, done.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from John

It's looking a lot better than last time around. I still hate the unnecessary duplicated pronunciation guide in the infobox. Looks stupid.

Helpful to me. Visually, shall we put them together in one line? -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That might help, good idea. --John (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. (punctuation between still ok?) OK? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Couple of chemistry queries:

• The difluoride was the first ionically conducting compound to be discovered (in 1838, by Michael Faraday).

  That's quite a claim. Electrolysis was invented in 1785. Do we mean the first ionic melt?

The idea is that it was the first solid substance found to conduct electricity. Also, the date should be 1834. Both fixed.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I raise my eyebrows at the idea of a solid ionic substance conducting. Are you sure? --John (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Are we talking about fast ion conductors? Might be worth a link if so. --John (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Carbon (coke or gas) is added to the molten charge along with fluxing agents.

  Are we talking gaseous carbon here? Or a gas containing carbon? If it's the former that's remarkable, if the latter we should clarify which gas we're talking about.

We're talking about coke gas. Added a wlink.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a redirect to coal gas which explains Coal gas contains a variety of calorific gases including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and volatile hydrocarbons. Can we explain a little? --John (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Coal gas was what I meant, of course. Perhaps it is best to add a note. Will do.--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Its prevalence in the human body—at an adult average of 120 mg[q]—is nevertheless exceeded only by zinc (2500 mg) and iron (4000 mg) among all metals.[209]

  Really? More prevalent than calcium, sodium, or potassium?

This should be "heavy metals," of course. Added.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

May be more to come but I can see supporting this time, once these few wrinkles are ironed out.

• Further thought: why are lead-acid batteries still so widely used in cars when we have better, safer, lighter, more energy-dense batteries now?

Because they're cheap :) --R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we source a sentence on that? --John (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Added. (Also, from what I see, mass is not too much of an advantage because mass of an accumulator is nowhere near comparable with that of the whole car.)--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why is it diamagnetic? (This is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article!). --John (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you ask me, our infoboxes have a lot of information that shouldn't be there. I am struggling to convince WP:ELEM this is the case.

As for your question, here's an intriguing idea: Lead(0) itself is 6s²6p_1/2² [4]. (In addition to that, the next group 14 element, flerovium, has all paired electrons: [Rn]7s²5f¹⁴6d¹⁰7p_1/2²; reasons for this are also found in lead, although to a smaller extent. Analogously, Bi⁺ is 6s²6p_1/2². [5].) This could very well be your answer. Not sure if we should discuss this in the text, though. (Not to mention I haven't yet seen a source saying that lead is diamagnetic because of this.) I need to consider it for a bit longer.--R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies; it might fit into the discussion of its superconductivity. Why does it superconduct at such a relatively high temperature? --John (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Diamagnetic substances are characterised by having no unpaired electrons, as Pb²⁺ does. The inert pair effect explains why β-Sn is paramagnetic while Pb is diamagnetic, as R8R states, and since the inert pair's effects for chemistry are already mentioned I would support adding a little sentence about the effect on the magnetic ordering. (C, Si, Ge, and α-Sn are diamagnetic for different reasons, having molecular rather than metallic structures.) About the superconductivity of Pb – this is actually also interesting: having a close-packed fcc structure it should have too much damping of the electron-phonon interaction for superconductivity (you can imagine it as there being not enough room for lattice vibrations and hence Cooper pairing). The reason why Pb still superconducts has to do with its extraordinarily high modulus of elasticity (ref). Actually all the post-transition metals (including Zn, Cd, and Hg) are superconductorsat normal pressure, except for Bi which has a semimetallic band structure and needs to be pressurised: the absence of polonium from the list is probably more a case of absence of evidence than evidence of absence. I'm still searching for a source as to why its T_c is so high compared to the elements around it, though. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The more I delve into this, the more I start thinking that this may very well be the sort of thing that cannot be explained easily without doubling the size of the section, but I shall keep trying for a while longer. Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Added diamagnetism without superconductivity; at this point I'm not even sure if the latter has an accepted explanation yet, much less one that won't drag the article's focus away for several paragraphs.. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the rationale now and I'm afraid this is unnecessarily complicated. I don't think we should include this superconductivity stuff.--R8R (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• And I hope you can live with the trims I did here and here. In each case, we had a major repetition, of the nuclear uses and of the chemistry of lead water pipes. --John (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry to keep coming up with things. Why does lead have a different crystal structure from that of β-tin? John (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • They're not completely different; the tin structure is distorted fcc (tetragonal). The inert pair effect is significantly weaker for Sn than for Pb, so I think what has happened is that while Sn gives up its 5p electrons with about as much completeness as Pb for 6p, Ca for 4s, or Sr for 5s (the examples we give), the 5s electrons are also contributing weakly, being still somewhat held by the individual Sn atoms and localised. I admit readily that this is completely my OR and I haven't found a source for it yet, but it is not unheard of elsewhere in the table: the α-γ phase change in Ce comes from the localisation of the 4f electron (source), so if the s-electrons are partially delocalised in Sn and not at all in Pb it would adequately explain the difference in crystal structures, and the partial delocalisation accounts for the structures being different but not completely different.
  • Well, my OR train of thought for this persuades me that this would be a good thing to include! Now to find a real source for it. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

John, that's alright with me. I have lost the idea that many stars is the thing to aim for and that every obstacle is bad. Inversely, I think obstacles are good as they pose chances for improvement.

As for this one: I don't know if I'll be able to find anything sourced, but I'll give it a try. Not yet sure if I want to have it in, but let's see when/if I have found a source.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Crystal chemistry of tetrahedral structures (Pathé 1964, p. 13) says that the structure of white tin can be derived from that of gray tin by compressing the tetrahedra of the latter along their cubic axes. So white Sn effectively has a structure intermediate between the tetrahedral structure of germanium and grey tin, and the fcc structure of lead, consistent with the general trend of increasing metallic character going down any representative group. Sandbh (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a note to this effect. Sandbh (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I could keep making suggestions for a while yet but I think we are safely above the level of a Chemistry FA. Inasmuch as I can comment after 130 edits I now support this candidate. --John (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support and your improvements on prose! I've taken some notes from your go-overs on how to write my future texts.--R8R (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, it's been fun and I've learned a lot. A further question, sorry. We have Like the lighter members of the group, lead exhibits a tendency to bond to itself; it can form chains, rings, and polyhedral structures. in the lead, and we have brief mention in the organometallic section of chains, but there's nothing about rings or polyhedra. This means the claim is not referenced either. Would it be possible to write something about this, or remove it from the lead? --John (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The rings and polyhedra are mentioned above when discussing Zintl ions; I'll make it clearer that this is what they are. Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, added a brief explicit mention of rings and polyhedra. Double sharp (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! If these are discrete covalently bonded moieties, could we call them "molecules" in the lead? --John (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

They are discrete covalently bonded moieties, but I'm not sure if "molecules" sits well as a term for them, since they are charged (there's a good reason why they're called Zintl ions). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking good...

lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC - this sounds odd to me - I'd say from 3000 BC in this case.

since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians - ditto here

These two have actually been discussed in the beginning of this review and we've agreed "since" is okay for our AmE purposes here.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, missed that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In Europe, lead production only began to revive in the 11th and 12th centuries, - "revive" looks a bit funny here. I always think of it either as a transitive verb or in the passive

According to Merriam-Webster, intransitive "revive" is fine. Maybe that's another ENGVAR thing?--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably. I couldn't imagine writing it this way in British English, but I'm pretty sure that I've seen this construction used in American English somewhere. Double sharp (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

During the period, lead mining proved important - you can remove this - the next sentence spells it out anyway

:::A good one, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but lead is more common than most of these metals, and lead-bearing minerals are easier to mine and process than those of many other metals - cumbersome, why not just, "Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but are [generally/for the most part] less common and more difficult to extract from parent ores"

Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

One disadvantage of using lead is its toxicity, which explains why it has been phased out for some uses --> "Lead's toxicity has led to its phasing out for some uses"

Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

prose and comprehensiveness on point otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your time! Much appreciated.

(Again, I'm sorry to have forgotten to say it when first replying to the comments.)--R8R (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Axl

• From the lead section (pun not intended), paragraph 1: "When freshly cut, it is bluish-white; it tarnishes to a dull gray upon exposure to air." The infobox shows the default tarnished appearance, but it would also be nice to see a comparison with the cut bluish-white appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The sentence seems too promising. It would still be gray when freshly prepared and would only have a bluish tint. Corrected that.

For the picture, see File:Lead-2.jpg (in the text).--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the picture demonstrates "when freshly cut, it has a bluish-white tint". I don't think that the sample has been cut at all. Also, I am disappointed that the reference is a 1986 book in Russian [Polyanskiy, N. G. (1986). Fillipova, N. A, ed. Аналитическая химия элементов: Свинец]. While technically I suppose that the book meets Wikipedia's requirements as a source, it is an unhelpful reference as verification for readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The point is not that the sample must be cut; the point is that the sample must be pure, and freshly cut samples are purer until they undergo passivation in the air.

The source says, "В свежем срезе свинец является блестящим металлом серо-голубого цвета, который сохраняется в сухом воздухе, но быстро тускнеет в присутствии влаги." Google Translate translates it to "In a fresh cut, lead is a glistening gray-blue metal that persists in dry air, but quickly fades in the presence of moisture."--R8R (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the Russian citation with an English one. Sandbh (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe I did try doing this before and I generally like having English-language sources whenever possible. This is definitely sort of information that should exist in English, I just didn't get to find it (in English).--R8R (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The "new" reference ("Writers of Eminence") was written in 1880...? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, there are still many references to Polyanskiy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

From what R8R says (which accords with my experience looking for this), there may not be a good equivalent to Polyanskiy in English which is similarly comprehensive as a source. There are a great deal of good sources in other languages that languish untranslated (I am still waiting for a translation of the more recent editions of Holleman & Wiberg from German, for example), so I would be willing to make an exception for sources like this when they are very good. Double sharp (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the 1880 reference with a reference to G&E (1997). I understand (and support) the desire to have English-language sources in English Wiki instead of foreign-language sources whenever we can have an easy opportunity to have the ones in English; therefore, I've also replaced many references to Polyanskiy that were sufficiently easy to replace with references to other books (G&E, Ullmann, etc.) Those remaining are quite hard to replace, or at least so I found them; maybe there's a chance that that's been mentioned somewhere but this will require inadequate amount of work to find them.--R8R (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the situation, R8R. (I think you mean "inordinate", not "inadequate".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It is a soft, malleable, and heavy metal." In this context, soft and malleable are adjectives, but "heavy" is not a simple adjective. A "heavy metal" is not a "metal that is heavy". The list sentence needs to be re-phrased to avoid the implication that "heavy" is just an adjective. My suggestion: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Good one. Unfortunately, your suggestion won't work (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). The solution I found best was to remove the reference to the heavy metals in general, though maybe other possibilities exist.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that lead's status as a heavy metal is worth including in the lead section. "Malleable" is an English word that shouldn't necessarily need a wikilink. Moreover, "malleable" redirects to "ductility", and "ductility" is explicitly wikilinked in paragraph 4. If you are concerned about separate wikilinks in adjacent words, I suggest: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't object mentioning that lead is a heavy metal in general. As for "'malleability' is an English word": it is, but it is one that many people don't get right. Many people think "malleable" and "ductile" are synonyms, which they are not; for this reason, we even have a note in the article about this. Also, I prefer to separate the lead from the rest of the article, in counting first links etc. Many people who read the lead won't read any further and some people who want to know something in detail won't read the lead.

How about we move the reference the lead's heaviness to the paragraph on chemistry?--R8R (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe "It is soft and malleable, and is often classified as a heavy metal?

Copying the note here won't do because lead is both ductile and malleable, and mentioning both complicates the matter. Here, we only give a subtle hint the two are not the same.--R8R (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The wikilink that I refer to is in the lead section. Regarding your suggestion of "often classified", lead is one of three elements that fit all of the criteria of heavy metals. I think its status as a heavy metal is more important than being "malleable", more so given that we already say that it is soft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on having "heavy metal" back, but does it have to be on expense of mentioning its malleability? Here's a solution close to what we've had before: "It is soft, malleable, and a heavy metal." Do you think it's okay to go?--R8R (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reworded further; please see now.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Both the above suggestion and the current statement are fine. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Physical properties", subsection "Atomic", paragraph 1: "The similarity in lead is caused by the lanthanide contraction—the decrease in element radii from lanthanum (atomic number 57) to lutetium (71), and the relatively small radii of the elements after hafnium (72)." The first wikilink goes to "atomic radius", which seems fine, while the second link goes to "ionic radius". Is this intentional? If so, the sentence should use the full names of the types of radii to make the distinction clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice one! Yes, that second link doesn't belong there. Removed.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Physical properties", subsection "Bulk", paragraph 2: "It is the origin of the idiom to go over like a lead balloon." Shouldn't this be "to go down like a lead balloon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

See the source: "go over" is AmE, while "go down" is BrE. We use AmE in this article, so it's "go over."--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should give both versions, though. BrE users will understand AmE spellings, but they might not know all the different AmE idioms. Normally this doesn't come up because idioms are not really used in the sort of writing found on WP, but when the idioms themselves are the things being covered, I think it is justified. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is sort of a minor detail I wouldn't want to interrupt the text with, but I've added a note (this is a fine solution here, I believe) mentioning the British version.--R8R (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Works perfectly for me; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 3: "Their isotopic concentration in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of other elements. For example, the relative abundance of lead-208 can range from 52.4% in normal samples to 90% in thorium ores." The former sentence needs further clarification. I suppose that what is meant is that the percentages of the different lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the quantities of elements from the three decay series. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you basically got that right. Does it look okay now?--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "nuclides" could be referring to the isotopes of lead or to the uranium & thorium isotopes. How about this: "The concentration of lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of radionuclides from these three decay chains." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's only Th and U that matter (the rest being their daughters whose occurrence depends totally on that of their planets), so I'd just refer to them as "these thorium and uranium isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've edited it to mention Th and U explicitly as the parents; it should be clearer now. Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 4: "Lead-214, -212, and -211 are present in the decay chains of uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235, so traces of all three of these lead isotopes are found naturally." Why are these isotopes listed in descending numerical order? Also, I recommend adding "respectively" to the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Chemistry", paragraph 3: "Organic acids, such as acetic acid, dissolve lead in the presence of oxygen." That's interesting. Why is oxygen required? This reference discusses humidity, but doesn't seem to mention oxygen. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source doesn't go into any detail here. It's a very respected source, though -- it even has a template for wiki citations: {{Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}}.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "A further sesquioxide Pb₂O₃ can be obtained at high pressure, along with several non-stoichiometric phrases." Should this be "phases"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This has been fixed, though, but you spotted it well.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "Many of them show defect fluorite structures in which some oxygen atoms are replaced by vacancies." Should this be "defective fluorite structures"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 1: "The most well-characterized exceptions are the purple Pb[CH(SiMe₃)₂]₂ as well as Pb(η⁵-C₅H₅)₂." Is it relevant that the former chemical is purple? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "These compounds are relatively stable—tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C—or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." The use of the double dash effectively sets aside the text inside. This leaves the remaining statement: "These compounds are relatively stable or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." However this does not make sense. The statement needs to be re-phrased. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice one. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Tetramethyllead is no longer implied. Is that intentional? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've re-read the text; it seems clear and correct to me.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "With sodium metal, lead readily forms an equimolar alloy that reacts with alkyl halides to form organometallic compounds such as tetraethyllead." My understanding is that an alloy is a mixture of two or more metals. (The article "Alloy" implies that non-metallic elements can be significant constituents.) For an alloy to be "equimolar" wouldn't this require the constituents to be present in equal quantities? In which case, this would only occur if the initial conditions included the elements in equal quantities? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand the general principle vaguely but I'm not sure if I can explain it well. Some metals dissolve in each other and some don't. If I recall correctly, the equimolar alloy is a good solution with a good mixed crystal structure rather than a set of lead pellets within sodium or vice versa (so that there is some bonding between the two elements). Some small excess of either metal should not influence bonding, or does that only locally.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If that is indeed the definition of "equimolar" then the wikilink to "Mole (chemistry)" doesn't really make sense. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed the link.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "Other organolead compounds are less chemically stable or unknown." I am unsure what "unknown" means in this context. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the text originally read something like, "Other organolead analogs of organic compounds compounds are less chemically stable or unknown." The point is that there is no lead analog for every organic compound and lead analogs for many organic compounds don't exist. Do you think we should change the phrasing?--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How about this: "Other organolead compounds are less chemically stable. For many organic compounds, a lead analog does not exist." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Good; done.--R8R (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• A minor point: in "Origin and occurrence", subsection "In space", platinum and iridium have wikilinks, but the other elements do not. Why is this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Those elements not linked have been linked by this point already.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm.... "Gold" and "osmium" were linked in the "Bulk" subsection. "Mercury" was linked in the "Isotopes" subsection. Those subsections are a long way before "In space". I suspect that most readers do not read the whole article from top to bottom. Anyway, I suppose it is not important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "Prehistory and early history": "The Ancient Egyptians were the first to use lead in cosmetics, an application that spread to Ancient Greece and beyond." Was this lead metal, or a lead compound? This paper describes the artificial manufacture of two lead chlorides: laurionite and phosgenite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, Egyptian black kohl was galena. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Kohl the mineral (which is not galena but a closely related mineral) is not even a lead mineral, but it always contains lead as an impurity. The source also mentions almonds, which are actually used in cosmetics for making kohl the cosmetic. It seems they mixed the mineral and almonds; ashes and ochre seem to be fine in that mix just as well (as long as we're only concerned with color-making for cosmetics). And also, the source explicitly mentions lead---not lead rust, lead oxide, lead sulfide, or anything---just lead.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The very article that you refer to states "Galena eye paint (later termed Kohl in Arabic from the Akkadian word for the cosmetic) was widely applied in Ancient Egypt. Upper eyelids were painted black and lower ones were colored green, as depicted in ancient texts that describe the use of both black galena and green malachite." The article also describes the use of frankincense. "Kohl" is too generic a term to be used for one specific mineral. I disagree with your implication that "Kohl the mineral" refers only to stibnite and no other mineral. "And also, the source explicitly mentions lead---not lead rust, lead oxide, lead sulfide, or anything---just lead." Did you read the reference? It states "Egyptian women apply galena mesdemet (made of copper and lead ore) and malachite (bright green paste of copper minerals) to their faces for color and definition." There are plenty of sources that describe the Egyptians using galena as a cosmetic. They (and other civilizations) also used white lead as a white cosmetic. I am also surprised that you have not responded to my comment about this paper. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting. I'll get to this in the coming days.--R8R (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I've taken another go and I see you must've been right. Even the name "laurionite" is familiar to me. I believe I've shaken it off prematurely.

I've added the word "minerals." Is it good to go with?--R8R (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that you could have expanded this a little, but it's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "Classical era", paragraph 1: "Because silver was extensively used as a decorative material and an exchange medium, lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC, since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; by 1600 BC, lead mining existed in Cyprus, Greece, and Sicily." The grammar/syntax of the first part of the sentence (before the semi-colon) is not correct. Did the Phoenicians work deposits in Asia Minor since 3000 BC? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyedited and added more.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "Middle Ages and the Renaissance", paragraph 2: "The use of such wine was forbidden in 1498 by a papal bull, as it was deemed unsuitable for use in sacred rites, but it continued to be imbibed and resulted in mass poisonings up to the late 18th century." Was it forbidden just for use in sacred rites, or was its recreational use also forbidden? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources only mentioned rites. I've researched for an hour or two to get an answer to this one and by now, I'm confident it dealt with these rites only.--R8R (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. In which case the sentence needs to be re-phrased. How about: "The use of such wine was forbidden for use in Christian rites by a papal bull in 1498, as it was deemed unsuitable, but it continued to be imbibed and resulted in mass poisonings up to the late 18th century." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've done it on behalf of R8R Gtrs (we are both part of the Elements WikiProject). I didn't see anything that could be improved in the sentence you gave. Parcly Taxel 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the "as it deemed unsuitable" part. To keep the prose grasp, we should minimize the number of words that don't add anything particularly new to the text. Otherwise, yes, sure.--R8R (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "Modern era": "Countries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with." This sentence is somewhat clumsy. Can it be re-written? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Reworded and merged with preceding sentence: "Mechanisms of harm were better understood, lead blindness was documented, and the element was phased out of public use in the United States and Europe." We're almost done with our source review, by the way. Parcly Taxel 10:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• In "History", the subsection "Middle Ages and the Renaissance" mentions the use of [unjacketed] lead bullets. In the "Modern era" subsection, is it worth mentioning that copper-jacketed lead bullets are still used? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think so. In the subsequent applications section lead bullets and California's ban on them are mentioned, which implies the continuing use of lead bullets (jacketed or not). It would not be pleasing for a reader to encounter the same thing in two different sections. Parcly Taxel 16:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Double sharp

I'll heartily add my support based on all the improvements that have been carried out for this excellent element article. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and kind words! (I'd want to add another word, but nothing falls on my mind. So just thank you!)--R8R (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

One small thing about the s-process graphic: alpha decay of ²¹⁰Bi is a very minor branch and I think it may be better to not mention it entirely (also in the text). Perhaps we should also deemphasise the cycling from ²¹⁰Po and beyond, because the cross-sections for neutron capture of ²⁰⁸Pb and ²⁰⁹Bi are very low, so this is actually not a very major contribution (10.1103/PhysRevC.70.065803); a lot more lead (about one-third of ²⁰⁶Pb and ²⁰⁷Pb) actually comes from the r-process from the decay of the elements in the Po–Ac valley. Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on the Bi-210 bit. Will do. As for cycling, not yet so sure. IIRC, according to B2FH, this is an important factor. The paper you cite is more up to date, but I'd want to know that other authors confirmed this. B2FH has too much reputation to be simply overwritten by one paper.--R8R (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's just a minor detail in the picture, and I think we currently leave it vague enough to be fine. For instance, we don't say how much the cycling factor multiplies the observed abundance of Pb and Bi, and by not saying how major it is we don't make readers wonder how come capture past the closed shell is totally fine in the s-process and disfavoured in the r-process. Removing the alpha branching of ²¹⁰Bi is more important, I think. (B²FH treats it as important, but in that time the alpha-decaying isomer was thought to be the ground state: now we know that it is an isomer and will quickly de-excite in a stellar environment and have no time to go to A = 211 before terminating the chain.) Double sharp (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it there. As for Bi-210, I'm trying to update the file and unfortunately, it won't work, but I'll keep trying.--R8R (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Must be a cache issue; it still shows the alpha decay of ²¹⁰Bi at my computer at home, but it's gone on my phone. Given that, I have no further reservations. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

A well referenced and well written article on an important scientific topic. A few tiny points that don't really affect my support, but could be neater:

• The white face became a "symbol of a Japanese woman", with lead commonly used in the whitener. Why is "symbol of a Japanese woman" in quotes? It's sufficiently vague that I don't think it needs to be marked as a direct quote, and if you do want it be a quote, it's not clear which of the three references cited in that sentence you're quoting.

Yes, it does seem like a phrase I'd rather treat as a quote rather than state. Moved one reference to show which one I am referring to and added a precise quote.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Exposure to airborne lead from the combustion of tetraethyl lead in gasoline during the 20th century has been linked with historical increases in crime levels, a hypothesis which is not universally accepted I'd add "...and subsequent decreases..." - the striking part of the hypothesis is the decrease in crime with the introduction of "unleaded fuel". Also, we actually have an article on the Lead and crime hypothesis which should be linked.

As for "decreases": yes, you're right. Done. As for link: this actually has been discussed this and I thought we'd reached an agreement on having that link! Added.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• As with European industrialization, lead has had a negative effect on health in China. Something like "As was the case during European industrialization" might be clearer - it sounds like it's saying that European industrialization had a negative effect on health in China. Smurrayinchester 12:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, support. Smurrayinchester 13:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

• Have I missed a source review for formatting and reliability above? If we still need one you can request it at the top of WT:FAC.
• That aside, it looks to me that we've pretty well achieved consensus to promote here but pls jump in, reviewers, if I'm speaking too soon... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I am still in the process of reviewing the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing every source, but it will take a while. See above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• How are we progressing here? I'd really like to wrap this up soon. Axl, do you have more to add to your review? And Graeme Bartlett how is the source review looking? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am perhaps one third of the way through a full review of the article. If you cannot wait any longer, I suppose that since several editors already support the article, you should close with promotion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We can wait longer here, there is no particular rush as long as things are still progressing. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I got up to "e" with references. It showed that many references could be improved in some way, and perhaps 5% of facts were not supported by the supplied reference. But I don't expect that other featured articles are any better in this respect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Now up to "G". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by edwininlondon

Sorry for being late to the party, but a few more comments from a non-expert:

• Compounds of lead are usually found in the +2 oxidation state, rather than the +4 common with lighter members of the carbon group. -> this doesn't tell me unambiguously that lead is part of the carbon group. I would expect that in the first or second sentence.
• lead's upper neighbor in group 14 ->I haven't been told that group 14 is the same as carbon group. In fact, because both were links I assumed they were different

These two make a good call. There is no need to use both terms. I've changed all to "carbon group." Really, very well spotted; this is why I love having non-pro reviews. Thank you already at this point for taking part.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• The similarity in -> similarity of what?

Reworded this one.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• the outer electrons are drawn towards the nucleus -> isn't that always the case? (excuse my ignorance)

No problem at all, quite the contrary; I like writing good accessible texts and this sort of comments is what helps to check what I might have missed. Yes, it is always the case. What the text is trying to say is this: Outer electrons are, of course, attracted to the nucleus because their charges have different signes. However, outer electrons are repelled from the inner electrons because have charges of identical signs; this is the "shielding" referred to in the text. Comparing lead (element 82) to tin (element 50), the charge of the nucleus is almost two-thirds higher but the "new" electrons (present in lead but not on tin) should have shielded the nucleus better so that the resulting attraction to the nucleus is weaker (this, to oversimplify it, is why the vertical periodic trends are a thing). However, 4f electrons don't shield as well as one could have imagined and lead's outer electrons should have been not as well drawn to the nucleus as they are. Hope this explains it.

Now that you got it (if you didn't, feel free to ask any further questions), is there any rewording you could suggest?--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I get it. I actually think it is better then to just remove this statement altogether. It only raises questions unnecessarily. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Done.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• making the distance between nearest atoms in crystalline lead is unusually long -> superfluous is

Done, thank you.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• It is the origin of the idiom  -> what is "It" referring to?

Density; clearified that.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• small amounts of copper or antimony -> antimony should be a link

Sure.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• The beginning of the Inorganic compounds section feels repetitive: was this not already discussed in a previous section?

Sort of. The basic reasons why some lead's physical charactersitcs and chemical characteristics differ from those of the lighter carbon group elements are often identical. For example, the inert pair effect is mentioned first as a reason why lead's crystal structure is different than those of tin, germanium, etc. (in Bulk) and then as a reason why lead's oxidation states are different (in the beginning of Chemical characteristics) becuase it is both. However, I've removed one unnecessarily repititive sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• due to the Pb–C bond being rather weak -> How weak? What is the bond energy? I only ask because you just mentioned 98 and 356.

I think it's best we move from those numbers at all. It's the relative difference that matters here, not the values themselves.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• galena (a common lead mineral). -> I don't think we need the info in parentheses, already mentioned 2 paragraphs ago

Good.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• ; by 1600, lead mining existed -> BC I presume

Indeed.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Other researchers have criticized such claims, citing errors in linking the fall of Rome to lead poisoning, -> not much of an explanation I think

This is written this way only to stress the issue in the final claim ("false evidence"); some textual dramaturgy. Is it not okay?--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it could be better. Something along the lines of "Other researchers have criticized such claims, pointing out for instance that not all abdominal pain is caused by lead poisoning." Which is what I got from the 2nd source. I can't get to the first, but I'd prefer a bit more detail over the vague statements.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable. I have used your suggestion except I added commas before and after "for instance," which, as I just checked, seems to be correct for AmE.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• sound deadening -> What physical aspect of lead makes it a good sound deadening material? Why?

Good one. This will require some phrasing and source referencing accurateness checking so it'll have to wait for a while; hopefully, I'll get to this tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Added.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• lead in the early 21st century is in lead–acid batteries -> was already linked

Right. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this well-illustrated, interesting article. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it; thank you for taking part. It's this sort of reception that really pushes me forward.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see there are quite a few issues still with the references:

• 32 102 104 113 132 135 150 155 156 157180 190 202 219 all show up as red Harv errors. Half of those seem to come from V. Rich being either 2013 or 2014. Amazon BTW says it is 1994.

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a particular way of how you find these? If there's an automated tool, I'd love to know as I've wanted to employ one.

I was told to install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see them highlighted. It's great.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, fixed these links. (Removed one as the source has been removed but the sentence it was supposed to support somehow wasn't.)--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Parcly Taxel

With the editing that has taken place since Edwinlondon's comments on 3 June, a few new Harvard errors have come up (I use the same Ucucha script): Bremholm, Gottschlich, Hunter, Insel, Klatt, "Lead Paint Information", Sohn, Writers of Eminence. Would you care to remove those unused references as well? There's also the OED citation, which is reported as an error by the same script; perhaps it could be expanded into a full citation so as to avoid the error.

As well as that, is there someone willing to continue the source review begun by Graeme Bartlett above? Nevertheless, I still support this candidate for FA status – the layout is the same as that of fluorine, the one I myself nominated, and the prose itself is very clear and tight. Parcly Taxel 02:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done by nominator. I have no other issues. Parcly Taxel 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my attention to this. And thank you for your support!--R8R (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Remaining references for checking

@Dank:@DePiep:@John:@Casliber:@Axl:@Double sharp:@Smurrayinchester:@Edwininlondon:@Parcly Taxel:

As per Graeme Bartlett's leading efforts encompassing A–H, are you able to check one or more sets of references, by letter, and report the results here? If so, please you add your name to the following table:

Letter	Checker
A–H	Graeme Bartlett ✓
I–K	Sandbh ✓
L	Graeme Bartlett ✓
M	Parcly Taxel ✓
N	Edwininlondon ✓
P	Parcly Taxel ✓
R	Sandbh ✓
S	Sandbh ✓
T–Z	Parcly Taxel ✓

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a complaint about the page numbers. They should be included in the references section where there is only one page or footnote using it. They should not only be in the footnotes section. I see R8R Gtrs is removing the pages numbers. This is a disservice to our readers, (and also makes it more difficult for me/us to check).

I'd argue otherwise: I believe it is the best of service (I wouldn't be doing this otherwise). I believe that uniformity is an advantage as it becomes easier to check multiple sources: you only have to follow one pattern of referencing styling instead of two. My common sense is also telling me that the section titled Bibliography should only mention works and not pick parts of it; WP:BIBLIO does not answer the question explicitly but shows no sign that this information should ever be included.

(Apart from easier orientation, uniform reference styling is good because it is easier to maintain, which may become an issue over time.)--R8R (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@R8R: Ref check completed. Over to you for follow-up actions. Nearly there :) Sandbh (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(left: History of Cosmetics) Parcly Taxel 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see this only now: the ping somehow didn't get through. Thank you everyone.

I think all is clear now. Please report if I'm mistaken.--R8R (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@R8R: I believe these are the only ones that have not been closed off: Ashikari; Bergeson; Christensen; Frankenburg; History of Cosmetics; How does lead; Hunt; Lewis; Nakashima et al 1998; Nakashima et al 2007; Nosengo; Polyanskiy; Roederer (seems like an unsubstantiated inference to me rather than what the author actually says);^ Rogalski. Sandbh (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

^ try this one, or add it to the cite as confirmation. Sandbh (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: R8R and I have fixed most of those problems already. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Parcly Taxel:@R8R:OK, I felt it was important to make this clear to the FAC coordinators. I just read through the list and couldn't tell one way or the other if they'd been done. If you or R8R could let me know when they're all done let me know and I'll ping the FAC coords. Sandbh (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: @FAC coordinators: We have addressed or otherwise resolved all the issues with the references that have been pointed out here. Based on the comments and multiple supports, I believe that any remaining issues would be extremely minor. I think we can promote this article now. Parcly Taxel 07:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this will take some time for the coords to walk through and I'm unlikely to get to it today but at least it seems to be on the home stretch... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I–K

• Information for Community Confirmed. Changed the sfn from "Information for Community" to the author i.e. "Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry." The bibliography entry was "Information for the Community Lead Toxicity". I added a colon between "Community" and "Lead" in the title, to match the actual title. Reliable source. Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Jensen Confirmed. Corrected title from "Online Location of Faults on AC Cables in Underground Transmission" to "Online Location of Faults on AC Cables in Underground Transmission Systems". Reliable source.

• Jones Confirmed. but only as far as the US and British expressions. Corrected title from "Jedburgh Justice and Kentish Fire: The Origins of English in Ten Phrases and Expressions" to "Jedburgh Justice and Kentish Fire: The Story of English in Ten Phrases and Expressions". Corrected ISBN. Corrected page number. Trimmed entry field in biographic entry since the page number is given. Added another source making clear the connection to the high density of lead. Reliable sources. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• King Confirmed only for citations b and c. Citation a refers to the formation of "Pb(OH)⁺ and finally Pb₄(OH)₄" [confirmed] and then goes on to say "(in which the hydroxyl ions act as bridging ligands)" [I could not find anything in King supporting this last bit]. ISBN corrected. Publisher corrected. Reliable source. Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A reference for this hydroxy bridging is at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=BfhGCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA89 The Aqueous Chemistry of Oxides By Bruce C. Bunker, William H. Casey page 89 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    • If I remember correctly King puts a μ in the formula, which implies that they are bridging ligands. Double sharp (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
      • He does indeed. I kept him and added Bunker & Casey, since they have a nice picture illustrating this. Thank you Graeme. Sandbh (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Konu & Chivers Unconfirmed but should be OK. Corrected editor details and ISBN. Reliable source. Sandbh (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Koshal Says the mp of lead is low, rather than low compared to most other metals. Replaced with International Lead Association factbook cite, which confirms this.
• Kosnett Confirmed
• Krestovnikoff Looks good. I could not check the page number but the use of lead weights to provide buoyancy in scuba diving is well known; corrected publisher.
• Kroonen Looks good. Added volume details to bibliography entry. Ce article text to bring it more into line with source. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

L

• Langmuir 1 use reliable book reference, facts confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• ?Lansdown seems to be actually written by Sivaraman Guruswamy according to what I see on Google books. ISBN is 0-8247-8247-X, page 240 is correct and fact is confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Apparently the Lansdown and Guruswamy references had their links accidentally swapped. I've removed the Lansdown ref, since the Guruswamy ref confirms. Parcly Taxel 02:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Lead sling bullet should be reliable web site, caption confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Lead garden ornaments primary web site, fact confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Lead in waste government authoritative web site, fact confirmed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• lead mining - Anonymous newspaper extract, perhaps a book reference would be better. fact confirmed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• ×Leonard primary journal reference, facts not confirmed. (it confirms that Lead-based coloring agents was used at least once in glaze in the 1950s only) New reference may be required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, there is another reference tight there which, since it begins with a "B", must've been checked already. So I removed this one.--R8R (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Levin H book ref with 1 use, fact confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Levin R review from journal, fact confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• →Lewis web extract from a EPA Journal May 1985, original citation info is missing. should be reliable. fact confirmed.

  Done. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Lide confirmed. Updated cites and edition to 85th. Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• ×Livechart added "IAEA - Nuclear Data Section" as author name. Cites a, b, e confirmed. Cite d unsure. Cites c and f not supported.

I confirm the cite d (click the corresponding square and see the table below the chart). Removed c; surprisingly, this even does not make us have to have another ref because the ref at the end of that sentence will suffice. Removed the last sentence for the cite f.--R8R (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Liu confirmed. Added other authors.
• Lodders Not confirmed. This is a rather long dense article and I was not able to find supporting infomation for any of the five cites. Specific page numbers would be helpful. All five cites are currently shown as pp. 1220–47. Sandbh (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  All the data happens to be on two tables from pages 1222 to 1224. I've added specific page numbers and a link to the PDF. The calculations needed to derive the given figures have been explained well enough. Parcly Taxel 10:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

M

• Macintyre CRC book, reliable. Fact confirmed.
• Macomber I did not even see the word "lead" on page 230, only a table of bond dissociation energies. Is the statement about lead tetrahalides already covered by Greenwood & Earnshaw?

Probably a remainder from some old phrasing? Removed; thank you.--R8R (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Marcillac Nature article, fact confirmed.
• Marino Journal source reliable. The article only confirms the second sentence about lead dust; what about the first (regarding white lead and lead chromate)? Found with the Crow article (see Why use lead).
• Markowitz Reliable journal, fact confirmed.
• Masters Found the same citation on lead poisoning. Did not check, but from the two citations there I can infer that the page number should be accurate for the facts it supports. Confirmed.
• Meija From the IUPAC themselves. This one's a no-brainer.
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition, OK.
• Moore Journal article, fact confirmed.
• Mosseri Same as for Moore.
• Mycyk Did not check, but should be OK. Found this on the lead poisoning article too.

Parcly Taxel 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

N

• I fixed formatting of a few
• will check sources later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Nakashima et al 1998 should have {{sfn |p=59 and not 55-60 because that's the only page it back up the claim
• Nakashima et al 2007 is not actually needed, as it is basically the same study, and 2 references does not make it more true

  The 2007 ref was removed and the 1998 ref's page number was added. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• National Council on Radiation Protection - Confirmed. Trimmed page numbers. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health - citation (a) confirmed. Title corrected. Citation (b) not confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  Fixed. Replaced with the OSHA reference. Parcly Taxel 03:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• NIOSH Adult Blood - not confirmed.

  Removed and replaced with the OSHA reference. Now only the History of Cosmetics ref has a problem. Parcly Taxel 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nikolayev, S., ed. (2012). "*lAudh-". Indo-European Etymology. starling.rinet.ru. This is down as a book but I couldn't find it anywhere and the url given doesn't work.

I've corrected the link. Also, I've seen articles on proto-etymology that referred to this database (at starling.rinet.ru), so this must be good apart from just confirming the fact.--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Nonlead. Amended author details and footnote. Confirmed.
• Norman. Confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Nosengo did not actually back up the claim made. But it's an interesting application worth mentioning.

  Removed. Parcly Taxel 04:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nriagu (1983) I can't see the article but the bibliographic details are OK and I know from other refs that this cite is consistent with the article text. Changed rest of article title to lower case. Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Nriagu (2000) Looks OK. Amended author names. Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Nuclear. Confirmed. Amended author details and added wlink. Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

P

• Park Journal article, fact confirmed.
• Parker A thorough exposition of one kind of boat-building process. Fact confirmed.
• Parthé I've added the ISBN, a Google Books URL and the correct publisher to this one; fact confirmed.
• Pauling Did not check, but considering the title and the author I'm going to call this reliable and confirmed for both uses.
• Polyanskiy A Russian source; same as for Pauling. Is there an ISBN?

  I consider that enough references to this book have been substituted or removed that it is no longer a major issue. Parcly Taxel 06:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Prasad Reliable book. I guess the facts are relatively obvious and would be included inside, though I could not check.
• Primary Extraction Made redundant by the far more reliable Thornton reference that appears beside it and which confirms the same thing; I've removed it.
• Primary Lead Refining Four uses. Archived website from a lead association, all facts confirmed.
• Progressive Dynamics Just a note on how lead–acid batteries work, but it's OK and all.
• Putnam Reliable book. Fact confirmed.
• Pyykkö He's the one that gave us one more periodic table for the undiscovered elements. It's a reference in a note and it looks OK.

R

• Rabinowitz - The entries for the chapter title and the title of the book were the wrong way round. Now fixed. Corrected the publisher entry. Added chapter page range. The rest is good. Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Radiation your Health - Added author name as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; deleted publisher since this was the same. Otherwise confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Ramage - Changed author --> editor; amended publisher details. Unable to check page number but statement appears reasonable, and I remember reading something like this elsewhere. Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Randerson - Added publication issue details; amended journal details. Confirmed. Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Rappoport - Changed authors to editors; added chapter authors, chapter name, and page range. Corrected publication date. Confirmed.
• Reddy - checks out. I changed the cite to give the precise page number and moved the page range into the bibliography.
• Regulatory status etc - Added USEPA as author; deleted publisher since this is the same; amended title. Checks out. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Retief - is good.
• Rich - although fact for b is confirmed in book, it sounds dubious: "Lead has no natural resonance frequencies". for ref a: Why is "high ... atomic number" relevant to sound absorption? It is correlated with atomic weight and density however. Perhaps "The International Lead Trade" is not as reliable as we expect it to be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

With two exceptions, all of these cites check out, from what I could see. One was out by a page; the other did not directly support the statement it was was attached to. Both fixed. The book says the most important of lead's properties, in the context of its use as a barrier to radiation, sound, and vibration, are its density, high atomic no., and formability. That Pb has no natural resonance frequencies is confirmed by Ross in the Metallic Materials Specification Handbook 1992, vol 1., p. 203. According to our own article on Woodhead Publishing they are regarded as a reputable publisher. Sandbh (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Rieuwerts - OK from what I could see
• × Riva - Partly confirmed. I wasn't able to find anything in this ref supporting the assertion that, "in the last quarter of the 20th century, the percentage of people with excessive lead blood levels dropped from over three-quarters of the United States population to slightly over two percent."

It is a pity: I certainly recall seeing it somewhere. I'll look for it.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm onto this. Will add it whenever I have enough time.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Added more detail in the phrase in question; added a new ref.--R8R (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• × Roederer - I wasn't able to find anything in the article supporting the assertion that the amount of Pb in the Universe is slowing increasing (although I may have missed it). Sandbh (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a running theme throuoghout the text: "In this way, the Pb and Bi abundances in a star enriched by r-process material will increase with time as these heavier nuclei gradually decay"; "At low metallicity, an increase in the Pb abundance is one of the earliest signatures of s-process nucleosynthesis"; etc.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Added the suggested additional reference under the name of Lochner. Parcly Taxel 07:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• ? Rogalski - Corrected title and ISBN. The citation supports that statement that, "Lead-based semiconductors, such as lead telluride, lead selenide, and lead antimonide are used in photovoltaic cells and infrared detectors." The page range given is 485–541 which is the chapter on IV-VI detectors. It would be helpful to have more specific pages numbers. Sandbh (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think this is much of an issue, given that the fact isn't that complex. Parcly Taxel 07:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• × Röhr - Undated university lecture notes. Very likely to be right but won't do for an FA article.

These are actually dated: the website says the following: "1. Fassung vom WS 98/99, überarbeitet im März 2001 für den Vortrag bei der DGK 2001 in Bayreuth, weitere Aktualisierungen im WS 03/04 und im SS 2014. Im SS 2017 werden einige eigenschafts- und anwendungsrelevanten Aspekte (Materialien: Magnetmaterialien, Supraleiter, PC-Materialien, Heusler-Verbindungen, usw.) als Exkurse ergänzt." (WS = Wintersemester, SS = Sommersemester). Updated the reference and expanded formatting. And why will it not do?--R8R (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is good; upon further examination I withdraw my concern. The notes are fine. They contain text, illustrations for the lecture Intermetallic Phases. The author, Röhr, is widely published in the field of intermetallics. Sandbh (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Rudolph - OK based on the very limited things I could see about this one. Sandbh (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

S

• Samson - confirmed
• Scarborough - confirmed
• Scoch - confirmed Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Schoeters - confirmed
• Settle - not required; deleted
• Sharma 2013 - confirmed
• Sharma 2014 - confirmed
• Shell - link to web page of unknown reliabity; it's probably right, but this is an FAC

  Replaced with a Stone ref from Science. Parcly Taxel 07:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Significant - OK; added likely author details Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Silverman - confirmed; corrected article title
• Sinha - confirmed; added article page range
• Smirnov - looks OK; removed duplicate page range
• Smith - looks OK
• Sokol - confirmed; corrected chapter title; publisher; page nos; added article page range Sandbh (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Stabenow - confirmed; trimmed duplicate page #; added article page range
• State - confirmed; corrected author and title
• Street - confirmed; added edition
• Szczepanowska - confirmed; corrected ISBN

T–Z

• Takahashi Physical Review C article. Fact confirmed.
• Tarragó ATSDR report, reliable. Facts confirmed.
• NIOSH This actually belongs at N, but it's reliable (a lot of organisations depend on this book) and the facts are confirmed.
• Tétreault Deals with the same statement as Thurmer. Facts confirmed, article in JSTOR.
• Think Lead A company brochure. I was initially doubtful whether this was reliable or not, but I guess it is, in which case the facts are confirmed.
• Thomson Very old history book, but OK. Fact confirmed.
• Thornton See Primary Extraction above.
• Thurmer Science article. Facts confirmed.
• Toronto News from the AuBC, so reliable, fact confirmed.
• ToxFAQs Another ATSDR report. Fact confirmed.
• Toxic substances Ditto ToxFAQs and Tarragó (i.e. it's good).
• Trace element Article from a branch of the International Energy Agency. Facts confirmed for both uses.
• Tuček A nuclear conference paper. While "molten lead" isn't directly mentioned, the coolant use is indeed confirmed throughout the paper. Reliable!
• USGS
  • The facts covered by the 2016 report also appear in the 2017 report, so I've used the latter (and updated the numbers accordingly). The 2005 report is confirmed.
  • The 1973 book mentions Sardinia and not Sicily. I've corrected that; everything else is confirmed.
• US FDA Other than a typo in the page number (41 instead of the correct 42), confirmed.
• UNEP Confirmed.
• UC Berkeley Confirmed, though the linked website uses our (Wikipedia's) data and images, even going so far as to attribute, which is thus circular referencing. Perhaps use Nubase for this?

I decided this was okay since the information that we refer to (the fact that there are these chains) does not rely on what they copied from Wiki.--R8R (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vasmer Dictionary definition, should be OK (considering that the nominator is a native Russian).
• Venugopal I didn't get any hit on Google Books or the Open Library for this. Besides, the WorldCat search gives 1977 books whereas the cited book is from 2013. Can we have an extant source for both citations?

The book exists; I've added a Google Books link. Unfortunately, the GB preview does not have this page and I don't quite remember when I added it (and if it was me who added it), so I can't comment any further.--R8R (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll take it as correct. Parcly Taxel 00:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the book exists but the GB entry is wrong. I've fixed the cite and bib details. The page nos look OK judging from I can see in GB. Sandbh (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vogel National Park Service article. Fact confirmed.
• Waldron It's a review of another book, but the citation is for doubt of that book. Fact confirmed.
• Wani OA reliable journal article, fact confirmed.
• Weast CRC Rubber Bible. No-brainer for this one since it's in the infobox.
• Weatherings to Parapets An image from a construction company, which I guess is reliable. Fact confirmed.
• Webb A review of superconductivity in Physica C, fact confirmed.
• Whitten Did not check, but title suggests that the fact is contained inside, and it is definitely a reliable source.
• Why use lead Added author of the reliable RSC news, shifting it to Crow. Fact confirmed, and indeed this gives the source for the first half of the Marino citation.
• Wiberg Although I did not check, this is a major reference work, so I'm calling this reliable and confirmed for all four uses.
• Wilkes Same as for Whitten.
• Willey From the Skeptical Inquirer newsletter. Fact confirmed. (They tested this on MythBusters too…)
• Winder Two references from a published book (not self-published) combine for seven uses. All facts confirmed and reliable.
• Windholz Did not read, but since it's the Merck Index it should be OK.
• WHO Fact confirmed.
• Yong Journal article; image whose caption it appears in confirmed by the graphical abstract.
• Young From the US Coast Guard's official blog. Fact confirmed.
• Yu Book source. Fact confirmed.
• Zhang Reliable journal article, fact confirmed.
• Zhao A review book. Fact confirmed.
• Zuckerman Did not check, but judging from the book's title the fact is OK.
• Zweifel Same as for Zuckerman.
• Zýka Same as for Zhang.

Parcly Taxel 08:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has had an exceptionally thorough review, and could probably have been closed some time ago. However, the nominator and reviewers are to be commended on their thoroughness and wish to make this really top quality. I've read over this page a few times now, and have been keeping and eye on it and I'm pretty sure all the issues have been addressed. There are a few reviewers who left comments without supporting but there have been no major concerns raised that are outstanding that I can see, and certainly no opposition. There has also been substantial support and this has had more eyes on it than any FAC I remember in a long time. If any reviewers plan to comment further, discussion could continue on the article talk page. There is certainly a consensus that this meets the FA criteria and there is no real benefit to keeping this open any longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 21:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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