Talk:Carbon

H, C and O, if referring to hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen; should be pluralized as H's, C's, and O's (with apostrophes); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = hassium, Cs = cesium, and Os = osmium. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a PDF, did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like FA Oxygen has the same problem. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-laser-creates-conditions-to-form-liquid-carbon-for-first-time/ I wonder if an editor may wish to incorporate this into the physical properties section the article. Triple-point reached. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 13:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Location:

Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen.

Source:

This educational article from the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB Today), a reputable scientific journal platform, states that carbon ranks as the 15th most common element in the Earth's crust and the fourth most abundant element in the observable universe by mass, following hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. The explanation further elaborates on the stellar processes that generate carbon, including the triple-alpha fusion and distribution via supernovae, reinforcing the scientific reliability of these abundance figures. This source is grounded in current astrophysical and geochemical research and is considered trustworthy in academic contexts.

URL: https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/060119/for-june-and-july-it-s-atomic-nos-6-and-7

Location:

The atoms of carbon can bond together in diverse ways, resulting in various allotropes of carbon.

Source:

This chemistry textbook from the LibreTexts project—an open-access educational platform widely used in academic institutions—explains that carbon’s tetravalency enables its atoms to bond with one another in multiple ways, leading to a variety of allotropes. It outlines how different bonding arrangements among carbon atoms result in distinct structural forms, providing a credible and pedagogically sound explanation of the concept. This resource is frequently utilized in university-level general chemistry courses and offers both clarity and academic reliability.

URL: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/CLUE%3A_Chemistry_Life_the_Universe_and_Everything/03%3A_Elements_Bonding_and_Physical_Properties/3.3%3A_Carbon%3A_An_Amazingly_Allotropic_Element

Location:

Graphite is much more reactive than diamond at standard conditions, despite being more thermodynamically stable, as its delocalised π system is much more vulnerable to attack.

Source:

This scholarly review article—published in Chemical Physics Reviews by the Royal Society of Chemistry—provides a detailed comparison of the thermodynamic stability of carbon allotropes. It affirms that graphite is thermodynamically more stable than diamond under standard conditions, despite only slightly so (by about 2 kJ mol⁻¹). It goes on to explain that graphite’s delocalized π-electron system makes it more chemically reactive and susceptible to attack, whereas diamond’s rigid sp³-bonding network protects it from most chemical reactions. This analysis is grounded in experimental thermodynamics and density functional theory, making it a rigorous and authoritative evidence for the statement.

URL: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2019/cp/c8cp07592a

Location:

Carbon is also found in methane hydrates in polar regions and under the seas.

Source:

This educational review from the World Ocean Review explains that methane hydrates—where methane molecules containing carbon are trapped within crystalline water structures—are widespread in marine sediments along continental margins as well as in polar permafrost regions. It emphasizes that these methane hydrates represent substantial carbon reservoirs, and their stability is influenced by depth and temperature conditions. The analysis is grounded in oceanography and geochemistry, making it a reliable source for understanding where carbon is stored in hydrate form under polar and seabed environments.

URL: https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/energy/methane-hydrates/

Location:

Carbon-rich asteroids are relatively preponderant in the outer parts of the asteroid belt in the Solar System.

Source:

This peer-reviewed planetary science study explains that carbonaceous and carbon-rich (C/B-type and D/P-type) asteroids are predominantly found in the outer main asteroid belt, whereas silicate-rich (S/L-type) asteroids are more common closer to the Sun. The compositional distribution, derived from spectroscopic observations and dynamical modeling, demonstrates that carbon-rich bodies are significantly more abundant in the belt’s outer regions, providing a robust scientific foundation for the statement.

URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9005435/ Jaroslav Radomír (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jaroslav Radomír If you think that the article needs additional sources, then you may be bold and add them: this is a standard way that Wikipedia grows. Note, however, that we don't need to cite all the statements in the lead of the article, which is only meant to summarise the fuller content cited later. See advice at WP:LEADCITE. For assistance in creating full citations correctly, see Help:referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike, for the clarification and the helpful advice. I’ll keep in mind that the lead only needs to summarize the cited content from the body, and I’ll review WP:LEADCITE and the referencing guide to improve my edits. I appreciate your guidance! Jaroslav Radomír (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)