Talk:Neptunium(IV) oxalate

Well written

Pass

• The structure of this compound has been determined through X-ray diffraction. suggest re-wording to; The structure of the compound was determined through X-ray diffraction.

Fixed

• Because of this, the high-temperature calcination of neptunium(IV) oxalate should be "Due to this" or "As a result of this"

Fixed

• The History section is too small at two sentences. Should be either expanded or have its information added to another section

Fixed

• When neptunium(IV) oxalate is precipitated from aqueous solution, green crystals of the hexahydrate (Np(C2O4)2·6H2O) are formed. Wouldn't it be; When neptunium(IV) oxalate is precipitated from an aqueous solution, green crystals of the hexahydrate (Np(C2O4)2·6H2O) are formed

Fixed

• Other hydrates, such as the monohydrate (Np(C2O4)2·H2O) and dihydrate (Np(C2O4)2·2H2O), are formed by heating this compound. link "monohydrate" and "dihydrate".

Fixed

• What's a "hexahydrate"?

Fixed

• ions should be linked when it's first mentioned in the article

Fixed

• While initial studies suggested that each neptunium atom was bonded to four oxalate groups in a cubic fashion, later studies[1] suggest that each neptunium atom is bonded to two water molecules as well. the initial studies should have citations, and later citations should ideally have more than one citation. I might be wrong with this, but shouldnt you attribute who the studies are from? Might be wrong on this, tell me if I am

Fixed

The authors (and dates) of these studies ought to be included still. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I added the names of the authors, but they were removed in this edit.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 00:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks I don't agree that the names of authors should be excluded with regards to the development of this process, since specific studies are being referred to as originating or improving upon the process. Should we limit naming authors and considering them as notable to only when they do something like discovering or naming an element or a taxon? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Reaction with ozone" shouldnt have its own subsection, as it is one sentence, dont see any need to divide this section into subsections.

Fixed

• Neptunium(IV) oxalate decomposes on heating. shouldnt this be; Neptunium(IV) oxalate decomposes when heated. or something similar? Also, what does decomposition mean in this context?

Fixed

• Neptunium(IV) oxalate is an intermediate in neptunium separation and purification. what is an intermediate in this context?

Fixed

• and it can then be burned to produce neptunium(IV) oxide, NpO2.[6][12]: 703  what does burned mean in this context? does it literally mean burned? like burned as in heated too much

Word removed

• The citations in the Synthesis of other neptunium compounds section shouldnt be smushed at the end (specifically, that year needs a citation next to it)

Fixed

• After being precipitated, neptunium(IV) oxalate is heated in a stream of air or nitrogen, where the temperature is raised to 100–150 °C over an hour. suggest rewording to; After being precipitated, neptunium(IV) oxalate is heated in a stream of air or nitrogen, where the temperature is raised to 100–150 °C over the course of an hour. (Also include °F)

Fixed

Parentheses Retracted

• , and is used to make other neptunium compounds, dont think "and is" is needed

Retracted

• Neptunium compounds are generally only hazardous if they are inside the body, which they can enter through ingestion or inhalation. suggest rewording to; Neptunium compounds are generally only hazardous if they are inside the body, entering via ingestion or inhalation.

Fixed

• Ingestion is the normal route of exposure, though inhalation poses greater risks. should be "the most common route" instead of the "the normal route"

Fixed

Done with this section, onto the spotcheck! Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Done :D

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Strikethrough'd because you have edited your comment

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 21:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I did most of the changes you recommended, and I added some wikilinks. However

• I will not be including Fahrenheit. See MOS:CONVERT: But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so.
• In Neptunium(IV) oxide is also a major form of neptunium in radioactive waste, and is used to make other neptunium compounds, removing "and is" would imply that the two uses are connected, which they aren't.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 21:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• My mistake
• When looking again, I see how this could be misinterpeted

Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I added some info from another source in §Synthesis; could you double-check to ensure the prose there looks good?

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 00:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good Finnfrog99 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

The citations in the Synthesis section shouldnt be all smushed together at the end, should be placed throughout the section

I have cleaned things up. I believe this is also necessary for the DYK nomination.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 01:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

I believe the article is broad in its coverage, covers many aspects of its reactions and aspects Pass

Neutral

Article is neutral in its coverage. No presenting opinions as fact, or bias or anything like that. Pass

Stable

No edit wars, as you are the only person to have edited it since 29 April. Pass

I should note that we do have to wait for the DYK to go up before I can pass this, jsyk.

Illustrated

Image is relevant and free. Could have more categories on Commons but thats not a requirement. Only one issue, should have alt text and caption Pass

Finnfrog99 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing review

I will perform a review of the sourcing of the article as per requested by the main reviewer. I am sorry it has taken me that long, the delay is on me. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I should probably note that I requested this on discord. Thanks again for agreeing to do this! no rush Finnfrog99 (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: I may make further comments not directly connected to sourcing if I catch things. Ref numbers are at time of this revision: Special:Permalink/1358423529
• In the lead, It has been known at least since 1947 is appropriately sourced, but it is mentioned nowhere else in the article. If there is not enough information for a History (sub)section in the article, then this piece of information should probably be included in Applications, to give some context of how it was first used.
• The only mention of Neptunium radioactivity is actually in the lead; in the body there is only Neptunium(IV) oxide is also a major form of neptunium in radioactive waste, which is ambiguous.
• In Synthesis, filtration info and ascorbic acid reduction verified
• In Physical Properties, hexahydrate is described in source as "bright green, dense, and granular", so it checks out
• The solubilization equations do not exactly match the source, they should be:
  • Np(C₂O₄)₂·6H₂O (s) ⇌ Np(C₂O₄)₂ (aq)
  • Np(C₂O₄)₂ (aq) + 2 H⁺ ⇌ Np(C₂O₄)²⁺ + H₂C₂O₄
  • Np(C₂O₄)₂ (aq) + H₂C₂O₄ ⇌ Np(C₂O₄)2−3 + 2 H⁺
• So changing the first solid to the hexahydrate, and mentioning that the two other ones are solubilized
• Reference used for Structure verifies information in section and infobox.
  • "Cubic coordination geometry" is redlinked, but it is not because we lack an article: see Cubic crystal system. However, "cubic" when it comes to the structure is imprecise, so it should be specified which geometry it is.
• There is no need for a citation about vitamin C itself (or even a mention of vitamin C), since the link between vitamin C and ascorbic acid is irrelevant to the synthesis.
• In Reactions, ozone oxidation claim verified. A comment: I would move this sentence to the synthesis subsection of Applications, and rename the Reactions sections into Decomposition.
• In Applications, the link for Yoshida et al points to Researchgate, this needs to be adjusted.
• Is "oxalate" missing as the second word in the Synthesis subsection?
• Skimming over both 1960s Porter refs for Pu 238 production, I did not find mention of RTGs, can you point to where they are?
• Cobalt complex claim verified. Good job on the article overall :) Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  I believe I have fixed almost everything you have pointed out. I'm not sure what the problem with a ResearchGate link there is, but I did go ahead and change it anyway. The information about RTGs came from another source which I had forgotten to cite there. However, I am not sure how a mention of radioactivity should be put in the body of the article. Also, "Cubic" here refers a coordination geometry, as shown in this beautiful image, not a crystal system, which does not have a Wikipedia page. I suppose that was unclear so I have reworded it.

  Thank you for the review! :D

  UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 19:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Researchgate is a hybrid between a repository and a social network, so when citing a paper it is better to directly link to it (see WP:RESEARCHGATE). For the radioactivity, I assume you need a general statement about the dangerosity of neptunium compounds, which if I remember correctly you actually can find in the intro of the paper about the cobalt complex (I think that is the one), so no need to look far fortunately. And for the structure, I got confused indeed. It is surprising that we do not have an article there honestly, but I am sure this piece of art would be great to illustrate the concept! Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that I need a citation for saying it is radioactive given it is unlikely to be challenged. If needed I will look for a citation. I am moreso asking for where the info about it being radioactive should be placed in the body, since you implied it was a problem to only have the info in the lead, unless I misunderstood something.

  UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 22:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is unreasonable to consider that "Neptunium is a radioactive element and therefore its compounds are radioactive and dangerous" is a WP:SKYBLUE situation. It would easily fit at the beginning of Applications, since it is after all the main factor to consider in this regard as well. Unless there is a very good reason nlt to do so, everything that is in the lead should be somewhere else in the main text, and sourced there. In this case I believe there is no reason it is not necessary. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 23:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Alright. I could not think of a satisfactory way to integrate it into applications so I opted to add a note into the related compounds section. Does everything look good now??

  UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 00:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is not my preferred solution from a stylistic point of view, but as far as WP:V and MOS:LEAD go this is satisfactory, so no further comments for my part of the review. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for agreeing to check the sources!

  UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 13:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)