Talk:Lead/Archive 3

R8R I've started on the 'Origin and Occurrence section, 4.1 In space. You may be a bit shocked by how much I've trimmed from it. There is sentence in this section that I don't understand:

"The r-process does not directly form as much lead as the s-process, because neutron-rich nuclei with mass numbers 206–208 that would decay to lead are not magic, unlike those that reach the closed neutron shell at neutron number 126 and decay to the platinum group metals around mass number 194."

I looked up the source, too and I don't understand that either:

"The termination of the r-process occurs very differently. Nuclei along the r-process path with A >/~= 250 will undergo (spontaneous, neutron-induced, and β-delayed) fission and repopulate the r-process chain at lower nuclear masses (Panovet al. 2008). Neutron-rich nuclei produced in the r-process that have closed neutron shells at N = 126 (at the time of the termination of the r-process) will rapidly β− decay to atoms of elements at the third r-process peak—osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), and platinum (Pt), but not Pb. The nuclei that form with A = 206–208 nucleons in the r-process (i.e., those that will β− decay to the Pb isotopes) have neither a magic number of neutrons or protons, so they are produced in smaller relative amounts."

Why would the β− decay process favour Os, Ir and Pt, but not Pb? Os, for example, has no magic numbers but Pb has magic number of protons. Sandbh (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember having similar questions. Double sharp explained it well to me. See here. DS is better at understanding nucleosynthesis than I am, so while I'd love to help, I believe DS would be more competent.--R8R (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

One section to go and the preliminary copy edit is done. Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Great to know; thank you for doing the work. I hope I succeeded in writing an interesting piece of text. Eagerly awaiting your comments during the FAC, should there be any.--R8R (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting. Ill give you some pre-FAC comments. Sandbh (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. Thanks.--R8R (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Have finished first copy edit of the main article. Will now look at notes, and then give you an overall impression. Sandbh (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, it's 37.2 38.5 °C outside here at the moment. What's it like over your way? Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I know you weren't asking me, but its an unseasonable 28.4 °F (−2.0 °C) where I am. YBG (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unseasonable? Too cold or too warm? Sandbh (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unseasonably cold. It does get this cold every couple of years or so, but this year it has we've had several cold spells and they've lasted longer than usual. We've a 5 foot (1.5 m) snowman in the front garden, with the wheelie bins on the side of the road in the snow and ice that is expected to melt (finally) in day or so. Not much, I suppose, compared to R8R, but there you have it. YBG (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't match that but we had a surprise windstorm here on Friday afternoon that blew over quite a few trees, including one in our front yard :( Cost me a tidy sum to have it removed. Sandbh (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I first read that as "unreasonably cold." Temperature around here has increased back up to normal. Right now, it's −3 °C (27 °F) outside, which is great for winter if the snow is still around (it is). Just a week ago, however, the temperature fell as low as −28 °C (−18 °F). That was unreasonably cold (and rare around here). Though even this can be handled without any problems, the current temperature is nicer to handle :)--R8R (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes done. Will now form an overall impression (this will take a little longer). Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The intro says "It has the second highest atomic number of all practically stable elements.". I really don't like it, and I guess it says "pratically" because of Bi?. But I would say Th is pratically stable too (T½ approx. 10^10 y) and you could say the same for isotopes of U, Pu, Cm, and Np (T½ from 10^9 to 10^6 y). Christian75 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Because of Bi, yes. There is a difference between Bi and Th: bismuth is a billion times less radioactive than thorium. Bismuth-209 is radioactive at 0.003 decays per second per kilogram, while thorium-232 is so at 400,000 decays per second per kilogram. Human body, for comparison, is radioactive at 65 decays per second per kilogram.

Natural potassium is radioactive at 30 decays per second per kilogram. That means that a natural banana is radioactive due to its potassium and the dose you get from one banana is 5.02 nSv/Bq × 31 Bq/g × 0.5 g ≈ 78 nSv = 0.078 μSv (read banana equivalent dose for details). Same 0.5 grams of thorium-232 result in 4.43×10⁻⁴ Sv/Bq () × 400,000 Bq/g × 0.5 g ≈ 89 mSv, which is a lot more and no longer negligible. I can't calculate same value for bismuth, but since you know people only learned it was radioactive not in human experience, but in an experiment conducted at temperatures below 100 mK, you're free to assume that bismuth's radioactivity, unlike thorium's, is negligible.--R8R (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that if you work with Th in the lab, you have to take its radioactivity into account, while you don't have to for Bi. The difference between 10¹⁰ and 10¹⁹ is nine orders of magnitude, so there is a clear demarcation. An added issue with the actinides is that unlike bismuth, they do not decay to clean stability: when working with thorium, you have to take its much less stable daughters like ²²⁸Ra (half-life about 5 years IIRC) into account. Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel there is need for an updated overview of the role of lead in modern society. Where is it mined? Where are lead products used? Who is affected by its mining/use/disposal? I think it's relevant to include major incidents involving lead (i.e. lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan). There must be other incidents around the globe which are relevant to lead's role in the 21st century.Carlypmiller (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a lot is already dedicated to answering these questions. We list top mining countries in Lead#Production and we tell what uses lead has in Lead#Applications. We explain why lead is dangerous (we mentioned that the general trend of disposing lead from interactions with people back initiated in the 20th century and we explain problems lead could cause in (more or less) detail in Biological and environmental effects); the Flint incident you mentioned is listed in Lead#See also, which seems to me most appropriate. A more detailed coverage would be expected in a sub-article if there was one or anything that focuses on this aspect of lead more closely, but this is an overview article.--R8R (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph in the "Biological" section is very contradictory of all the previous information. It suggests that lead could be an essential element while the paragraph before it emphasizes the dangers of even very low exposure to lead. Perhaps there should be a separate paragraph for the biological implications of lead in animals, like pigs and rats (which are mentioned); as of now it seems off-topic and random. There is a plethora of reliable research which establishes the dangers of lead exposure in humans. However, there is no substantial research which says that lead could be an essential element for humans, and thus this should not be included. --Carlypmiller (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it does suggest so. I hoped it would be clear we are talking about "trace amounts" -- we use that phrase in the text -- yet you're free to emphasize it further (if you actually think this is needed, I encourage you to try or provide suggestions). We don't talk about non-human animals much. We even mention finding that in mammals because it would actually suggest this could (not for sure, but there's an actual chance of that) be true for humans as well (you've surely heard about how many products to be used by humans are first tested on other mammals like rabbits or mice, for example); this is far different than finding that lead has biological uses in some bacteria. It is mentioned in one short (three lines of text on my laptop) para only for a reason, after the main idea -- that lead is toxic -- has been explained in detail, and we emphasize that this is only a possibility and that even if so, lead poisoning is still far more dangerous than lead deficiency. The uncertainty of this has been clearly emphasized. But there is a chance of that; I don't see why we would hide it.--R8R (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

0. Paragraph construction is good.

• Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1. I wonder if the Etymology section, which is quite long, really deserves to be in section 1?

• I decided it'd be interesting to learn where the name came from as I was writing the History section. Then this info didn't fit in and broke the flow, so I split it from the rest of History. Note that some other articles on topics that are not related to chemistry (but also rich history-wise) have Etymology sections: see Australia and Russia, for example. Also I thought that Etymology was quite short?

As for section order: the order of sections seems otherwise great to me. We first describe physical properties; they are somewhat useful when we discuss chemistry (relativity, for example); both are important to give the context on Occurrence; all of this is, in turn, useful for History; then follow the sections on Production and Uses, extensions of History into the modern days (also relying on Occurence and Properties); and then last follows Biology, because it seems natural to put Precautions and similar stuff in the end and because it also relies on previous information (you get modern information in this section, so it's useful to have general description of where lead in the contemporary world is found). However, no section relies on Ethymology, and Etymology relies on no other section. It was short, and I put it in the beginning.--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved it into the History section, and added some some subsections. It's not quite there yet, but I feel the structure is better. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

2. In section 2 on properties, I noticed some duplication in mentioning malleability and ductility. And I'm not sure what value there is in mentioning lead's boiling point, at least not without any context.

• I also initially thought that was strange, but that was what the sources said. I consulted a dictionary and our Wiki articles and it turned out malleability and ductility were different properties. Surprised, I added a note there. I thought, however, that explaining it to native speakers would be nearly pointless as they would all be aware.

As for boililng point: I somewhat sympathize this thinking, but that's what all textbooks do. mp and bp, as well as density, are always listed. Myself, I got used to the fact this is the info I'm certain to get and the story without it doesn't seem complete. So I followed suit.--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

3. The isotopes subsection is quite long.

• Yes, but for a purpose. Lead has a special position in the chart of nuclides as it completes many decay chains. There are few elements for which such length of Isotopes would be justified, but lead is one of those few.--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I just re-read this section and I think it's fine now. Sandbh (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

4. In section 3, on chemistry, I got the impression of some duplication when it came to talking about relativistic effects.

• Seems fine to me; could you specify what triggered this thinking?--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

5. In section 8, on Biology etc, I gained the impression of some duplication between the subsections.

• Could be, I guess? It seems to me that the topic and the way we're discussing it is continous, so uhm, I don't know. Could you give an example?--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll do another copyedit pass. -- Sandbh (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time. Much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is looking very good! Excellent, even. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! It's always very pleasant to read such comments.--R8R (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The two paragraphs in the On Earth section: are not well structured, discussion of reactions, minerals, then abundance, but then followed by yet more discussion of minerals. Perhaps the discussion of minerals can be better combined, and then followed by discussion of abundance? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that the first para is about general characteristics of lead in minerals: where it occurs and how and why it got there. The second para discusses particular minerals.--R8R (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: lead can be widespread and it can be found in the nature; occurrence is cannot be found in nature because that's not how the English language works. There aren't many senses in which an element can be widespread, and even if there are any other than primary, the context is clear on that we're talking about primary one.--R8R (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is important in the first sentence of a section to make sure that the context is clear, hence my edit. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I rarely have problems with others' wording. Wikipedia doesn't belong to me, and I don't see too much point in defending my wordings anyway especially given they're often not the best. My concern is that the phrase "occurrence is widespread" is incorrect. Lead can be widespread. Occurrence can be high.--R8R (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm seeing that this is the first sentence of a section on "Prehistory and early history", and so some context needs to be established. While I'm not exactly sure of why you find "occurrence is widespread" to be incorrect, I note that it is "natural occurrence is widespread" that I'm emphasizing. Lead can be "widespread" if people find it in one or a few locations, and then redistribute it to lots of other places, but I don't think that is the point, here. The point is that lead can be found "naturally" in lots of places, and this, then, led to its widespread use. I'm not just trying to argue, here, and I'm open to restructuring the sentence, if we can just help to establish the context. Note, further, that geologists often use the words "natural occurrence", see: . Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am still bothered about how words play together. Will you be okay with the phrase "Lead is abundant in the nature"?--R8R (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can accept that, even though I think it would be better to say "naturally occurring", which would be standard in even "geology light" literature. We don't need to go around on this anymore. You are writing a very good article. Thank you for that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

See my recent change; adjust it if you want to.

Thank you again for your compliment, much appreciated. I guess I'll see you at the FAC that is about to begin? :)--R8R (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

(Or rather will begin when I find that that confounded sourcee about lead bullets. It is astoundingly difficult to find one that talks about all those alloying elements...) Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so true. So much in fact that I yesterday decided to ask a relevant WikiProject (WP:Firearms) for assistance and they advised two sources to look in. I was able to find both online (1, 2).--R8R (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement "Years B.P. = years before 1980" in the History figure caption contradicts Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#BP_or_YBP where it is stated that the reference point is 1950. Plantsurfer 15:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I never knew there was a scientific convention about that and used the date of the source I could trace the graph back to. I'll remove or correct the comment.--R8R (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We have several molecular diagrams, but not one showing that lead is a common end product of radioactive decay -- possibly especially showing Uranium to Lead decay chain. I've seen one someplace in Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find it now. Maybe somebody can find it and put it into this article? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I found what I was looking for. Have a look at the isotope section. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic to the idea in general, but I'll remove the chain because it does not fit size-wise. When inserting images, I (naturally) faced the problem for the Isotopes section as well, and a graph of a decay chain was my first idea. I declined it as these pictures are too long. When contracted to an apprehensive side, they become unreadable (and then what's the point?), like the picture now. I genuinely can't read mass numbers or atomic numbers (can you?). I think we have now a better picture anyway, one of the two in this article I'm especially glad to have.

If you really think we need it (though do we?), you're free to try Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop and ask them to rotate one of the images 90 degrees. Better any one of the other three, so the resultant picture is not too thick/high. Then we could insert it between some paragraphs.

Also, I'd like to ask you to restrain from copyediting for now. I know you mean best, and I generally don't mind such work done by anyone as I am not that good with English anyway, but we now have John---a well-established master in copyediting---doing the work. His work is sort of a safe ticket for me through the FAC on prose quality, one (and perhaps only) thing I can't enhance myself in an article. Hope that's okay with you.--R8R (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure the half-lives of the intermediate steps of the chain are important in such an article. If we're making a graphic from scratch, I'd like to have a very-low-detail Segrè chart where the only isotopes named are the natural primordial ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, and ²³⁸U. Each of them is the parent of a decay chain leading to a lead isotope that would be colour-coded somehow: maybe the uranium series is green, the actinium series is orange, and the thorium series is violet. (Or something else, I don't know.) Then we'd just make it clear where the chains start and end and mark their route somehow. Double sharp (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the notes, I note that they need attention for grammar. Take, for example, note "i":

It decays solely via electron capture, which means when there are no electrons available and lead is accordingly fully ionized—has all 82 electrons removed—it cannot decay and becomes stable. Fully ionized thallium-205, the isotope lead-205 would decay to, becomes unstable with respect to decaying into a bound state of lead-205.

I have to leave for now, but maybe somebody can comb through these? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and will have a hack later if nobody else gets there first. --John (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a once-over. --John (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm finding many errors in the references. Even if you don't want to change formats (which I would suggest, for the sake of greatly improved clarity), we can deal with the errors now (ongoing) or at FAC, whichever you prefer.Cheers   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lingzhi: Thank you for your interest and offer of assistance. What errors were you referring too? Sandbh (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Many. Maybe even "many, many". Each error itself is (almost always) trivial, but the cumulative effect == "lots of boring fiddling with details".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Do you have some examples? Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) Forex Whitten, K. W.; Gailey, K. D. General chemistry with qualitative analayis (3 ed.). Saunders College. pp. 904––905. ISBN 978-0-314-20397-7. Unknown parameter plus isbn points to a completely different book.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: One source of help (for books only): There's a tool that's almost always (but not always) accurate with books. Go to my user page and look at the bottom-most userbox. That tool is nifty; I use it constantly. It has options to format the authors by lname fname, to add ref=harv, etc.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I found it very recently myself. Their tool for DOI is also very good.--R8R (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre, as I'm sure I got the ISBN from http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter What was the unknown parameter? Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Spelling error lats, last; I think R8R Gtrs fixed it....User:Lingzhi/sandbox2 will give you an idea of what I would do to change the referencing. It still needs tweaking. The format makes it much easier to spot errors, IMO. Plus it's just.... nicer looking. Organized. But I am not done tweaking the Python (programming language) program I wrote to convert it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty. I use that format myself in articles I write but since Lead is not my article, would like to hear from @R8R Gtrs:

Normally, I would say I am torn. It indeed looks nicer but also requires to make more clicks to get to the sources.

However, the topic is not something I would find important to argue about anyway (in a context other than getting through FAC). If you guys like either option, I will accept whatever it is.--R8R (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) Re: "more clicks to the sources". For cites that are in body text (not inside notes), one click shows you author/date, and two clicks shows full ref. For clicks inside notes, one click to the note and you DON'T see author/date, then another click to full reference. I am persuaded (evolved position) that using {{harv}} or {{harvtxt}} (depending on context) is best inside notes, so the author/date are visible. Either way, it's two clicks to full-length reference, but with harv inside notes, it's always one click to author/date. If you have no idea what I just said, you can look at User:Lingzhi/sandbox, find a Note and click it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

OK Done. If I were to make two more suggestions, I would use ((tl|sfnm}} for multiple cites in a row (so for example smelting.[93][103][104] would display as smelting.[93], and when you click down there are three refs together like this: Hong et al. 1994, pp. 1841–1843; Callataÿ 2005, pp. 361–372; Settle & Patterson 1980, pp. 1167–1176.). The second I discussed above, so inside the footnotes (and only there), instead of "...has been attributed to relativistic effects.[5]" you would see "has been attributed to relativistic effects (Pyykko 1988, pp. 563–594). But that's all up to you.... OH Sorry, just noticed a problem with Winder (1993). Needs to be Winder (1993a) and Winder (1993b), and need to sort out which bit of info goes to which source. But bedtime now. Tomorrow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work. I noticed a stray bit of code and enclosed it in an <!-- invisible comment --> for now as it was annoying me. Could you (or someone else who understands the syntax) please fix it? --John (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• The source covers pages 1167–1176, and someone put a note "See pages 1170–1176" (or I assume that's what "1170f" means). Since there are only three pages of difference, I deleted it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, 1170–1176 is the page range of the article; 1170 is the actual page of interest. So the citation now shows as pp. 1170–1176 (1170). Sandbh (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Alas, many of the page numbers are kinda hosed. The page/pages parameter was used inconsistently in {{cite book}} in the version before I altered it.... So... I'll see if I can fix this programmatically... but may have to fix 50 or so by hand... This is the reason why separating a cite into {{sfn}} in body text and {{cite book}} in References is the way to go.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sandbh:, @R8R Gtrs: I believe I am finished, though I certainly could have missed something. Several of the journals have the full page range in both the Notes and References rather than specific in the former and full range in the latter; that's the way they were when I found them. There are three references <--- Commented Out -->. I made {{sfn}} for them and left those inside the comments, then I added the full refs into the "Further Reading". I am not interested in co-nom, and will also step aside from FAC review. Please do ping me if I messed anything up. ;-). Good luck!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Lingzhi for all of your work. I'll have a look at those outstanding items. Sandbh (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: "Sources of lead contamination are being curtailed" ironically, not in source (Greene).

This one will take me a bit longer as I think the whole section may need to be restructured. Sandbh (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, this one's done. Sandbh (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"The rate of skin absorption is low for inorganic lead" I put page 17 after the Tarrago cite, but p. 17 doesn't say exactly what our article says. It doesn't say "low"; it says "lower than for organic".

Fixed with a better cite. Sandbh (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Audi et al. 2003, pp. 3–128 SIX cites to this source, none with page numbers, but unfortunately the entire content of that article is Greek to me. I cann't find any of the cited info.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

One by one:

• "this has not been observed for any of them": pp. 108--110;
• "Lead is therefore often quoted as the heaviest stable element.": none (will remove the claim);
• "although it has a half-life of 22.3 years": p. 111;
• "In total, thirty-eight lead isotopes have been synthesized, with mass numbers 178–215.": pp. 102--112;
• "The second-most stable is the synthetic lead-202, which has a half-life of about 53,000 years...": p. 108; "...longer than any of the natural trace radioisotopes": basically the entire article save for introductions;
• "tin (element 50) having the highest number of isotopes of all elements, ten.": pp. 63--69.

I either learn (later) the patterns in the new citation style and fix it, or welcome anyone to help with that.

Lingzhi: I have come to like the new style; it seems better than what we had before (and it's now far easier to maintain a single citation style). Thank you so much!--R8R (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I will fix them. You're welcome for the help... By the way, the two best computer programming professors I ever had were both Russian. [I dropped that career path later, but still.]  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I could easily believe this now that I'm not in, but clearly near that scope of activity. :) warming to know, thank you.--R8R (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In the section "On Earth",I added a clarification tag to the citation to the book by Emsley ---page 286 of this book is about niobium, not lead. Also, note, the linked Wikipedia article Abundance of elements in Earth's crust gives a ranking for lead's abundance at 37, not 38 as stated in this article. This is something of a technical point as there is some uncertainty in these rankings, but we might consider a way to handle this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Which edition of Emsley did you refer to? In the 2011 (revised) edition page 286 is about lead. I added a note about the variability in the detail of elemental abunance figures, but now this makes me think that perhaps all of our element articles should use the CRC reference in our data page. Sandbh (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I used the version that was hyperlinked in the article itself:, which is the 2001 edition. I've now taken this link out to avoid confusion. I think I might have been the one that put the link in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is an FA candidate. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lead/archive2. -DePiep (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A guide on how to add a reference to this article and fall in line with the general referencing style

1. Write a reference as you usually would in a template that is most appropriate for your reference: {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite report}}, or any other template of this series, preceded by an asterisk for the bullet list. Please use |first1=, |last1=, |first2=, |last2=, etc.; also, please add |displayauthors=3 if there are more than three authors (alternatively, add only three authors and then add |displayauthors=etal). Finish your reference template by |ref=harv.
2. Do not add it not in the text, enclosed by <ref></ref> tags; add to the Bibliography section following the alphabetical order of references. Alphabetical order is set by the first word in the displayed reference text; this will be either the last name of the first author (or the author organization if the author is an organization) or, if no author is present, the title of the referenced work.
3. Add an {{sfn}} template to the piece of text you want to reference. All parameters are unnamed, except for the |page= parameter (or |pages=, or |p=, or |pp=). Add them in the following order: last names of the first four (or less, if less are provided) authors; year of publication; |page= or analogous parameter.

The reference should look like this:

• * {{cite book |last=Emsley |first=J. |authorlink=John Emsley |title=Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements |year=2011 |publisher=Oxford University |isbn=978-0-19-850341-5 |ref=harv}} in the Bibliography section; and
• {{sfn|Emsley|2011|p=280}} in the text near the claim.

Hi R8R, where are things up to? I gather there's only a few outstanding items. Sandbh (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The future renomination has been off from my immediate agenda ever since I learned we have to add the new direct industrial technique of lead production and check the current text and the new additions form a good non-overlapping text. I've set up a placeholder empty subsection with the expectation that I fill it as soon as I have enough spare time to do so. I wanted to do it yesterday but I was overwhelmed by my RL activities.

It shouldn't take all too long (and then the renom will be back on my agenda) but must be done first.--R8R (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Take your time. Would like to see you back sometime later on. Meanwhile, all the lead in the world should take care of themselves. Old enough. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for a late response. I've spent most my Wiki time for a post for the Wikimedia blog which should go live soon. Thanks for the warm reply. Now that most of this work is done, I'll be back to this article as far as I'm not away again for a different reason.--R8R (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to be ready to go soon. It seems I only need response from Nergaal. Will maybe try to think about it in the meantime myself as well.--R8R (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference Webb, G. W.; Marsiglio, F.; Hirscha, J. E. (2015). "Superconductivity in the elements, alloys and simple compounds" (PDF). arXiv.org. p. 2. Retrieved 2 March 2017. is incorrect since the name of the last author is just Hirsch, and since it's an arXiv preprint that was published in Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications, I suggest change it to cite journal and add |arxiv=1502.04724 to give link to the free access preprint, but the page number will need to be changed (the page range for the journal article is 17–27). Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for a late response. A magnificent catch. Done. Thank you.--R8R (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As for arxiv, I'd rather not. I have no problems with it, but reviewers will want uniformity and we don't use it elsewhere.--R8R (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)