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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Lead(II) nitrate[edit]

Check external links
Note: WP:FFA, has been on main page.

Last year, this article was promoted to FA (see previous FAC). A recent Featured Article Review was not attended well, and resulted in a demotion of the article because concerns were not addressed. Now, with the help of other editors (Tony being very helpful for final smoothing), the article is, in my humble opinion, at least back at its previous FA level. Since, the FAR process can only demote and not promote, I hereby propose the Lead(II) nitrate article for FA again. Wim van Dorst (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for pointing out opportunities for further improvement. Specifically, would you please be so kind to indicate in which way referencing isn't FA-standard, so that we can actually address the issue? Wim van Dorst (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
In what sense it is not comprehensive? What would you like to see included? Physchim62 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few unreferenced paragraphs. The FAR says why the article is not comprehensive. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sections are well-covered by appropriate references. There were two paragraphs in the Aqueous chemistry section with information that in the field of chemistry is considered basic knowledge. These are now also supported by appropriate references.
  • The insufficient comprehensiveness as pointed out in the FAR was taken already handled by 135 edits to the article, enlarging the article by several topics and a sizable amount of information.
  • If you have additional concerns, feel free to point these out well. If not, I hope you will adjust your vote. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hi, Kiyarr. I have copy-edited the history section to better point out why and how the production process is so straightforward then, as it is today. And yes, lead poisoning is a major problem, that's why the Safety section explicitly indicates Lead poisoning to be the main article on the issue, and why half of the whole safety section is about that topic. The comprehensiveness of the article is well discussed in the FAR. Experts in the field indicate that there just isn't more to tell about this compound. I hope the copy-editing and the explanation here are helpful enough for you? Wim van Dorst (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no large scale production of lead nitrate. Lead and lead compound producers in China and India typically offer the products in 25kg bags; no serious offers of larger bags can be found. It really is produced in small batches only, using the technology pointed out in the article. I hope the you can agree with me that is is hard to give a reference or hard information about something simply not existing. In my humble opinion, the article well states that the production is small-scale only, and in this aspect is therefore as comprehensive as can be. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • In my humble opinion the article is not comprehensive and does not look FA. With my humble opinion I heartily agree with "It have to be more to tell about the production". --Kiyarrllston 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly, I have copy-edited the 'Preparation and production' section to show all information about production. Note that I have not found serious offers of bulk (i.e., 1000 kg bags or larger) lead(II) nitrate, just the obscure Chinese or Indian supplier's hype that they can 'supply any quantity required'. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Initial sentence is "Lead(II) nitrate is the inorganic salt of nitric acid and lead". Firstly, 'inorganic' seems an odd modification for the term 'salt', which is defined in wikipedia as the product from the neutralisation of an acid and a base - but lead isn't a base. It also seems strange to indicate how it can be made in a definition, rather than focusing on what it is. A better start might be "Lead(II) nitrate is an inorganic compound comprising one lead(II) cation for every two nitrate anions".
  • Next sentence is "It is a colourless crystal or white powder and, unlike most other lead(II) salts, is soluble in water". This sentence can be simplified be rearranging it to "... and is soluble in water, unlike most other lead(II) salts", improving the writing. The assertion that it must be solid is also technically incorrect. Maybe "Under standard conditions, it is a colourless crystal or white powder which is soluble in water, unlike most lead(II) salts."
  • According to guidelines, the lead must be a summary of the article body. Therefore details, such as 'standard conditions' need not be repeated here. The by-phrase 'unlike...' is at this place in the sentence for emphasis. For clarity, I have added 'it', although I doubt that it is an improvement. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I still think the emphasis leads to an inelegance of language, but it isn't important enough to be worth debating; however, I still object to the statement as overly broad. Considering further, my problem is the 'is', because it makes it like a definition. What about something like "As a solid, it occurs as a colourless crystal or white powder...", or maybe "It commonly occurs as ...", or "It can be found as ..."? By the way, I agree that the extra 'it' isn't an improvement, and would have no problem with your removing it. EdChem (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done as recommended, on both points. Thanks for making the point clear. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Properties in box at RHS. The unit for the litre is L, and thus the mililitre is mL - not ml as is used here. Solubility box at bottom of section is mis-formatted, as data for 'in alcohol' and 'in methanol' do not align to the corresponding statements in the LH column. Stating that it is 'insoluble' in nitric acid is also too broad, as the extent to which solid lead(II) nitrate would dissolve depends on the concentration of the nitric acid. Data for in 'alcohol' and 'methanol' are surprisingly different, even if we ignore the fact that methanol is an alcohol (as the link provided proves) and assume that 'alcohol' is meant to mean 'ethanol' in this case (1 g per 2500 mL in ethanol but 1 g per 75 mL in methanol is a big difference).
  • Of course the unit for litre it not L: we follow SI units here, where lowercase 'l' is the proper unit. I adjusted the link for the 'alcohol' solvent to better indicate that ethanol is intended, and adjusted the vertical alignment. And yes, it is a big difference. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neither l nor L are "units", they are symbols for the liter, and both are acceptable according to SI guidelines.[1] That said, I think most people nowadays prefer L to avoid confusion with 1 or with I. --Itub (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an Australian, and was honestly unaware that l was widely used in Europe - a student using 'l' in place of 'L' would typically be corrected here. Given that, as Itub has noted, both are accepted symbols under SI, I withdraw this objection. However, I still much prefer L, and have noted its use on other wikipedia pages. Perhaps some general consensus for wikipedia would be helpful? For that reason, I have raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals EdChem (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wim van Dorst, will you please point me to a refernce on the solubility data in methanol and ethanol? EdChem (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was this very old edit of mine that added the info. I'll try to retrace the exact ref. Note that I wrote 'methane': the methanol was a later correction by someone else. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • That wasn't hard to find: first ref added in that edit: the MSDS by Iowa University. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I suggest that we remove the information about methane or methanol until a decent source can be found. The Iowa State Uni MSDS actually says "methan", which is truncated and unclear. The solubility difference of methanol v ethanol has my chemical instincts twitching, and the possibility it means methane - a gas at RT - has me even more concerned. EdChem (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your asking specifically for corroborative data got my attention, and I searched some more: The MSDS van Sciencelab and the product spec of Jinyuan Chemicals provide similar or equal information. So although I don't have any real scientific citation, I think the data is not wrong, and therefore I left it. If you have contrary info, feel free to edit. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Having now seen something that does unambiguously provide those data for EtOH and MeOH in your links, I am OK with the information being left in. EdChem (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supplementary data page has essentially zero data - why is this included? And anyway, surely some of the thermodynamic data - like enthalpy of formation and molar entropy of the solid - are known.
  • Your point about the supplementary data page not being the FA candidate is well made, but I am still left wondering why the tables include links to pages with no data are provided (like the thermodynamic properties), or where no meaningful data could be provided (like NMR spectral data for something like lead(II) nitrate - I realise you could get a lead-207 spectrum, or maybe a nitrogen-15 spectrum, but is that what this NMR link is meant to mean?). EdChem (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is part of the Wikipedia Way: you include all relevant links. Although the currently nearly empty datapage does not provide extra data yet, in the future, those tables may be full and complete. And those datapages (created by a template) are part of how information is provided on chemical article pages: see wikipedia:Chemical infobox for further details. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • OK. I have some issues about the infobox, but they aren't relevant to a discussion of the FA candidature of the lead(II) nitrate artivcle - so I'll leave comment on this topic on the infobox talk page. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, Aylward and Findlay's SI Chemical Data lists an enthalpy of formation for lead(II) nitrate - would this be an acceptable source for adding the value into the supplementary data? EdChem (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do when I have my copy and the computer at the same place at the same time! EdChem (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aqueous chemistry section: The colour of the product from adding KI to a Pb(NO3)2 solution will depend on whether the KI is added as a solid or as an aqueous solution. The links in the formula Pb(NO3)2 go to the nitrate ion and to elemental lead, despite the fact that the formula refers to lead(II) ions. The start of the following paragraph is repetitive: "Apart from lead(II) nitrate, lead(II) acetate is the only other common soluble lead compound. Nearly all other lead compounds are insoluble in water, even when coupled with commonly very soluble anions" - the fact that most lead(II) compounds are insoluble is already stated in the lead-in, and the solubility of lead(II) acetate seems of peripheral relevance, unless connected to the importance of lead(II) nitrate for metathesis reactions given there are comparatively few alternatives. Further, lead(II) chloride has an appreciable solubility at RT (unlike the article implies), and the crystal formation characteristics of lead(II) halides seem irrelevant to the aqueous chemistry of lead(II) nitrate - and isn't 'can be beautiful' a judgement, as opposed to a more factual 'have been described as beautiful [ref]'. In the final part of this section, the concentrations of the added hydroxide are irrelevant to the chemistry being discussed, and should be removed - the same chemistry would occur with other concentrations. There should also be no 'surprisingly', as this begs the question of 'to whom?'. Simple statements "Lead(II) nitrate solutions form basic nitrates when hydoxide solutions are added. The mixed salt Pb(NO3)2.Pb(OH)2 predominates to the half-equivalence point, with Pb(NO3)2.5Pb(OH)2 then formed until well past the equivalence point. No simple Pb(OH)2 is formed until the pH exceeds 12." are sufficient.
  • Done as recommended: removed repetitive text, toned down solubility stated, added additional details, removed judgmentalw words, replaced with the objective use of the effect, removed irrelevant numerical data, rm vague words. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Some good changes, but some bits not done: Firstly, as I wrote, "The colour of the product from adding KI to a Pb(NO3)2 solution will depend on whether the KI is added as a solid or as an aqueous solution." This raises two points: (1) I am uncomfortable with neutral species equations such as the one used in this case - they mislead students by obscuring the chemical process occurring. Both this fact, and my point about colour, could be avoided if a net ionic equation were used: Pb2+(aq) + 2I−(aq) → PbI2(s). Has there been discussion about using such equations? If there is already a wiki-consensus, then I'll defer to it, but equations like this one should IMO be discouraged. (2) The statement about the similar reaction on grinding in a motar and pestle - how about adding a comment that the resulting colour is much paler, due to the presence of white solids in the resulting mixture? EdChem (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) and (2): Done as recommended. There is no consensus on how reactions are written, but your accuracy on this specific one is appreciated. Other context may, however, lead to different outcome, e.g., when the solids are reacting. But that is a beside, better discussed in WP:CHEMS. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I also commented that "The links in the formula Pb(NO3)2 go to the nitrate ion and to elemental lead, despite the fact that the formula refers to lead(II) ions." If there is no lead(II) ion page, I suggest no link at all - having a link to the element page for lead is misleading, as that is not what the formula means. If a lead link is maintained, then shouldn't the nitrate link actually be a nitrogen link and an oxygen link? EdChem (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are different views (see talkpages/archives of WP:CHEMS) on wikilinking formulas and reactions. My personal view is not to obscure reactions with wikilinks that (as you point out) might even direct you wrongly. So with pleasure, I added this extra adjusted to the same sections. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have followed advice (below) and boldly made some changes to this section of the article, presenting the chemistry in a way I believe is now accurate. Any comment? EdChem (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crystal structure section asserts "All N–O bond lengths are identical, at 125 picometre", but the bond length is given as 127 pm in the supplementary data.
  • Corrected in the article, based on the reference of dr Walker, who copy-edited this into the datapage. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decrepitation part needs change. Article states "When heated, lead(II) nitrate decomposes to lead(II) oxide, dioxygen and nitrogen dioxide, accompanied by a crackling noise referred to as decrepitation. But, linked wikipedia page for decrepitation states "Decrepitation is the breaking of a substance usually accompanied by the emission of a crackling sound". Leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what 'breaking of a substance' means, it isn't clear whether decrepitation is the sound or the 'breaking'.
  • Done as recommended: Decrepitation is the noisy falling apart of crystals under heat. I copy-edited the Oxidation and decrepitation section to better point this out. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Preparation section: not sure what 'chemically' is doing at the start of "Chemically, the compound can be obtained ...". Later, it is not clear why the low solubility of lead(II) nitrate in nitric acid means that the anhydrous crystal is necessarily obtained, rather than a hydrate.
  • Done as recommended: removed 'chemically', as well as 'anhydrous'. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Applications re-states thermal decomposition equation (redundant), and asserts it allows for 'pure' dinitrogen tetroxide, which is a nonsense given its equilibrium with its monomer - an equilibrium stated in the article! Further, NO2 / N2O4 mixtures undergo photochemical processes - such systems, when cooled, produce a blue liquid (dinitrogen trioxide), for example.
  • Also, "Due to the toxic nature of lead(II) nitrate, it has limited industrial application" is questionable as there are plenty of industrial compounds which are much more toxic. Perhaps this means to say that lead toxicity to humans means there is a preference for using alternatives, but that isn't what is actually written.
  • Done as recommended: copy-edited the section to better phrase the development. Explicit ref added. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I could probably go on, but I hope this provides enough to make the point that FA is not presently justified, and to indicate some areas for improvement, separate from those previously raised. Please note that this is not intended to be critical of those who have worked on the article to date, but that there is room for further improvement. EdChem (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution, and for making your first ever edits under this user name to place your point of view in this discussion. Feel free to join us at WP:CHEMS if you wish to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia articles about chemical compounds. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I definitely frown upon commenting negatively under a sock puppet account, I have taken your recommendations seriously, and enhanced the article in line with your recommendations, or even as recommended. Most issues you brought forward were, in my humble opinion, not major blocks against FA status, but indeed are appreciated improvement recommendations. Please be invited to add more to wikipedia, per Physchim62, especially here with lifting your Opposition, or otherwise pointing out which issue would otherwise still prevent re-promotion of the article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physchim62, thanks for the comments. I have used wikipedia a lot, but not edited much before. Thanks also for the suggestion to join WP:CHEMS, although I have no idea how to do that. Help! EdChem (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, this is the easy part: just go here and add your name to the list of participants (table format). And then be bold and start editing articles. Pick any article, e.g., one from the worklist of on the WP:CHEMS page. Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wim van Dorst, as I have only one account, and have only just dipped my toe into the wikipedia editing pool, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet account. I started with a chemical topic as I felt that I was on safe ground (knowledge wise). Instead of just jumping in and changing things I consider chemically wrong, I voiced suggestions. Believe me when I say that I am not trying to rain on your parade of pushing this article back to FA status - to me, this article had a variety of small flaws and inaccuracies. It is, in my opinion, getting better; however, I will not remove my 'oppose' just because you want me to; I will do so when I believe that a change in position is warranted. EdChem (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typically, a new user starts with editing an article in a small way, not by commenting on FA candidates. However, your recommendations were (as pointed out) appreciated. So keep going until convinced of FA-quality yourself. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I guess I did start with a jump into an unusual place - but it was this discussion that moved me from just using Wikipedia to actually editing. FYI, I did feel bitten (or at least nibbled), and that you were trying to force me to remove opposition. I think we are now working well together, so I'm just adding this so you are aware how I felt - whether you choose to give that any thought is your choice, of course. Anyway, I'm now changing to 'weak oppose' as I think it is nearly there, and I'm going to try a bit more boldness. EdChem (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a 3D visualization of the mocule?
  • Why is "probably carcinogenic to humans" in italic?
  • Can we have a picture, for example, of the "precipitate of the bright orange-yellow lead(II) iodide"? That would be nice.
  • The link "lead oxide" needs disambig.
  • Should 27 picometre and 127 picometre be in plural?
  • I think a citation is needed for "Because of this property, lead nitrate is sometimes used in pyrotechnics such as fireworks."
  • You talk about taste in the article, why not put it in the property box?
  • Sometimes you use abbreviations and sometimes not (25kg, 100 gram).
  • Maybe be more specific when saying "in classrooms". Universities?, highschools?, all over the world?
  • Shouldn't "mole/l" be "mol/l"?

Randomblue (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Randomblue, some good comments. FYI, a 3D visualisation isn't possible as lead(II) nitrate isn't a molecular material - it is ionic, and hence represented by a crystal structure such as the one included in the page. The picometre question really points to the inconsistency of unit usage - these should be pm. But, you're right, if spelled out, they should be pluralised. On the "mole/l", you are correct that the abbreviation "mol" should be used, but this drew another point to my notice - we have g•mol−1 for molar mass but g/cm3 for density - shouldn't we be consistent and use g•cm−3? PS: This is another argument for 'L' not 'l', as it allows for mol•L−1. EdChem (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional to EdChem's comment:
  • 'probably...' is italic, as it is a formal category as defined by the IARC. It needs standing out, so it either italic or quotes.
  • The picture of PbI2 would go to the article of PbI2, not here.
  • Plurals of units should be used in-line (see WP:UNITS. Corrected.
  • Citation is added
  • The format of the Chembox is strictly defined, after due discussion in WP:CHEMS and WP:CHEMBOX. Taste was decided to not be included.
  • Full text should be used in-line (see WP:UNITS. 25 kg corrected.
  • Classrooms all over the world, where solubility is being explained, with my personal experience both in high school and in university. It is so striking that is an old-but-goody. I don't how to be more specific than 'classrooms'.
  • Should be mol/l. Corrected. And I implemented the mol/l elsewhere, too, to make units usage consistent. (ps. when used, it should be · (·), not &bull (•).)
Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • The remark on the website had caught my eye too, but it did not give me a reliable impression: world's leading bismuth producer with a production of 1200 tpa stating that a hazardous by-product amounts to tens of thousands of tonnes per year? Therefore I personally contacted the responsible marketing manager of Sidech, asking for more details, both on the production process (if there is one) and on the amounts mentioned on the website. As this website is the only one I could find suggesting anything else than 25kg bags, I thought it worthwhile to follow-up. Didn't get an answer to my email yet, but will act on its outcome. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks as ever to Wim for his perseverance (and expertise) in getting to the bottom of industrial chemical matters. To put this supplier's claims into perspective, I have found one statistic (Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.): in 1974, the U.S. consumption of lead compounds (excluding pigments and gasoline additives) was 642 tonnes. It's an old statistic, to be sure, but it doesn't really fit well with "thousands of tonnes per month" of lead nitrate being shipped across Europe: if anything, consumption of lead compounds has dropped over the last thirty years, not risen! Physchim62 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate both your efforts. I thank you for your responses.--Kiyarrllston 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree the article have been greatly improved, it is a lot of work done there. According to this site "Sinosale" it is possible to order "woven bags , 25kgs , 1000kgs , 1100kgs net each or according to the user¡¯s requirements ." I don't know how serious this site is, since they also sell caps and stuff, and I have not tried to order. It is some minor issues:
  • The article doesn't tell whether it occours naturally or not.
  • Use for pyrotechnics should be mentioned under applications.
Another exempel of an article that is good written, but don't meet the FA criterias because it is not enough available reliable sources, is Ununoctium. This article could be compared to that one, but I'm pretty sure it is even more difficult to get good sources at the other article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sinosale website is exactly one of the abovementioned Indian and Chinese chemicals supplier where things on offer are not necessarily realistic. One shouldn't be surprised to learn that filling a 1000 kg bag is actually being done by emptying forty 25kg bags into it.
  • Both edit recommendations are now included in the text
  • The Ununoction article is interesting, but that one isn't at FAC. I agree it will be hard to improve that article to FA level. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • PS. No feedback from Sidech yet. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • That's typical for wikipedia articles, and all other articles on websites: one cannot fix the layout so that it always works optimally: there are always people with other browsers and setting combinations. For reference: a shot of my screen. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • OK, thanks. Following all of the work that has been done, I am now comfortable with the content of the article, and am changing my position to Support. I have modified the start of my initial comment to reflect this fact. EdChem (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would be so kind as to point out which prose isn't up to your expectation of brilliance, then the remark would be addressable. The article is indeed smaller than the current trend to make article well over 50k. Since the subject is a small subject, the size of the article is intentional. And according to wikipedia standards, a lead text does not have citations, unless the subject is controversional. The intention of the lead is to give a summary of the article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copy-edited the lead again, to be a good summary of the article, which has changed since the beginning of this FAC. Wim van Dorst (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Much improved since the FAR. My support will have to be a weak one as I know nothing of the chemistry. On the History and Safety issues, it seems to meet 1B. Marskell (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • referencing information in the infobox like names, solubilities, densities, crystalline structure
  • add thermodinamical data to infobox: including enthalpy of formation
  • melting point in the infobox reads "470 °C (Decomposes above 290 °C)" at least a note describing what id decomposes it into, and how was the 470 found out (maybe under high pressure?)
  • sabout production:add selling price, and how much of the lead consumption goes through the nitrate; also explain why is it advantageous to synthesize and distribute lead through the nitrate as opposed to other compounds (solubility in water and price?)
  • article has ONLY 1 picture! surely there can be more pictures added, such as in the complexation section, or in the toxicity one
  • aqueous chemistry and appication sections are under-refferenced
  • external links section is a bit long for the length of the article

Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I do agree with you when it comes to referencing in the infobox. It's not added in the FA about different elements. I can't say I see the point of giving up a price for the compound, since it can go up and down. The price is interesting for some elements (gold and platinum f.ex). When it comes to meltingpoint for the compound, I strongly agree it have to fixed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • so how do I know that for example, the names aren't just made up? the comment about the price was more because of a comment in the history section(something like the total workdwide production of lead is x tonnes, implyinig that everything goes through lead nitrate. and I didn't ask for a specific price, but for a very orientative one - more like the order of magnitude)Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nergaal, Grrahnbahr, Thanks for the support and improvement recommendations. Your points: Referencing in the chemical infobox is not standard, and it would definitely mess up the layout. But it is a nice idea, that we should discuss in the WP:CHEMS (the defining wikiproject). Most items, such as the names that you mention, are explicitly referenced in the text body. --- The thermodynamic information (and similar advanced information) is by definition of the chembox part of a secondary datapage. And EdChem added that info a week ago. --- Pictures are a nice addition: the article has two, btw. Other encyclopedic pictures I haven't found, and simply for illustration is not correct (see WP:Images, section 5.1). --- Also the length of a particular section is in itself not negative, is it? I moved several of these links to their proper places are references. --- And I added a good reference (Thanks dr Walker) to the aqueous chem section. --- Pricing is typical for laboratory chemicals: 100 to 1000 dollar per container (100-2500 g) and variations thereof (simply googled that). This isn't a commodity product with a global market, so I agree with Grahnbahr that adding this kind of info to this article is not helpful. --- The melting information is indeed doubtful, although often published. Old publications indicate only decomposition about 470 °C (often copied into the 'melting point field') and recent references also show decomposition (sometimes 'flash point') at 290 °C. I made the article show no melting point, and a range of decomposition at 290-470. So I think all you requested points have been implemented or otherwise addressed. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Since the reaction with iodide is discussed more or less extensively and the reaction is visually attractive, perhaps a picture such as [2] would be nice to have (of course, a free version would have to be found). However, I don't see this as a requirement. --Itub (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
More