I think the YAGs part in the article is alittle bit short. phosphors are mentioned in the lead, but not the importants YAGs for solid state lasers.--Stone (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YAG is mentioned in the article body. Do you mean that a mention of YAG also needs to be added to the lead? I'll go ahead and do that when I expand the lead. However, the lead section is the last one I touch in an article (==Compounds== and ==Occurrence== need fixing prior to FAC first). --mav (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's happening here, appears to be a reviewer, but nothing on GAN page except my "on hold". Please clarify, because I don't want to waste my time if someone else is reviewing. Just one comment for now. Yttrium metal of 99.9% purity is commercially available at a cost of about $75 per ounce. What currency - Nicaraguan cordobas? US is not the only currency to use $ sign. Is the price guaranteed for the foreseeable future - if not, need a date for that price. Ounce needs a metric conversion, at least, in a science article, even if it's normally traded in the imperial unit. Why is price a characteristic of Yttrium? Is the price standard worldwide, or is it just in the US? jimfbleak (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to simply remove that sentence altogether since it is at least 10 years out of date and I don't know of any place to find reliable info to keep such a figure updated or even if USD and once are the internationally-accepted currency and unit yttrium trades under. --mav (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, doesn't fit in anyway jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the review: Go ahead, please provide your review feedback and I'll (and likely others) will make sure to address your concerns. --mav (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously well on the way, some comments

• General - check for surplus also and however padding
• Lead - Hate that note tag right at the beginning. Anyway round that?

somebody skilled should write the phonetic spelling right before the note. Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yttrium has no known biological role, and exposure to yttrium compounds can cause lung disease in humans. - Disease is a biological effect, needs rephrasing – normal added perhaps.
  • I think "role" already implies "normal". Do you think changing "and" to "though" would make this clearer? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*History it was believed that earths - metal earths would be clearer

it is a dated term, check Earth (chemistry). Nergaal (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• contained in fact - as opposed to fiction, lose in fact

• yttrium barium copper oxide - needs (YBCO) following to explain the next usage - at first I read it as a formula
• Characteristics One of the few notable differences - half are exclusively trivalent, so not that notable, lose that phrase?
• but other acids do. -which ones?
• The common oxidation state of yttrium is +3. - You’ve said trivalent miles earlier, this is just lost

valency and oxidation state are not synonims. Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yttrium metal of 99.9% purity is commercially available at a cost of about $75 per ounce. – just about the worst sentence I’ve seen in a GAN (as above), lose it and forget it was ever there
• Garnets YAG, Y₂O₃, yttrium lithium fluoride, and yttrium vanadate - acronym, formula and words, yuk – at least write the oxide as words for consistency
• Material enhancer Small amounts of yttrium (0.1 to 0.2%) have been used to reduce grain size of chromium, molybdenum, titanium, and zirconium. - perhaps the grain size also, why is this done?
• Medical and exotic The radioactive isotope yttrium-90 is used for treatment of various cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and bone cancers - some links here?

• known perovskites that are alternate mixtures of these elements - should it be alternative not totally clear
• geological – I’ve removed fact tag
• NEEDS CITES AND CLEAN-UP - the hidden text message is valid, reference or loose the text
• Precautions - do you mean Hazards ?
  • AFAIK, Precautions is a fairly standard heading, at least for elements. See xenon and uranium. --Cryptic C62 · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]] 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Water soluble compounds of yttrium are considered mildly-toxic - Oh dear, -ly plus hyphen is always an abomination.

That's it for now jimfbleak (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The valency/ON point was not repetition, but that the ON bit is completely isolated, whereas to me the logical place would be immediately after the valency bit. I'm busy this morning, but I'll have another read through within the next 24
• I don't think the unreffed bit actually needs refs, whether FA reviewers agree is another matter
• image OK, refs OK.but I'm not sure of the point of linking some books to Google books when no preview is available
• See also contains only previously linked items, seems pointless to me

jimfbleak (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've missed the ON point the first time but now it should be fine. The two google books I've found have previews. I've trimmed the see also to only the stuff that is suimilar to the name of the article.Nergaal (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a thought for FAC, I know it's not compulsory, but is it worth adding another image (TV tube maybe)? Anyway, onwards and upwards jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]