Talk:History of aluminium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

What an interesting article.

• Why has Lowthian Bell and his early manufacture of aluminium not been mentioned? And his famous aluminium top hat, please.

Why is his manufacture particularly notable? It doesn't appear to me at the moment that he is more notable for the history of aluminum than William Frishmuth, who we don't mention entirely not to overstretch the appropriate section.--R8R (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It was the first in Britain, part of a huge company; and it was the one and only top hat - in other words, it was a remarkably confident piece of showmanship to do with early production of the very expensive metal. Bell was one of the richest and most famous men in England at the time. I should have thought it was more than worth mentioning, and indeed ideal as a headline-grabbing DYK fact for the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Will add (not today though, hopefully tomorrow).

By the way, Frishmuth's factory was the only pre-Hall-Heroult factory in the U.S. It must mean that it was that factory where Hall first tried to apply his new idea. Maybe I'll mention that as well, that's interesting, I'd say.--R8R (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like another footnote. BTW the 1864 Bell quotation about the required purity for Aluminium manufacture is also of interest as it shows a clear understanding of the chemistry from that period. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've checked and and it was a different factory, which I wouldn't want to mention not to inflate the history too much.

I wouldn't have any doubts about the general understanding of chemistry in the mid-19th century in the fist place. For instance, Deville, too, knew his aluminium was impure, and devoted a good period of time trying to make it as pure as he could.--R8R (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I've added the basic facts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I feel we are missing any kind of illustration of early aluminium products. At least one photograph, maybe two, would be in order in "Mass usage", and ideally an earlier one also.

I am not unsympathetic to the thinking. I am only afraid we are limited on vertical space.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There will be no problem getting in one or two images, I can arrange them for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, did my best.--R8R (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I thought we'd have at least one early product. These look modern to me? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I said I'd done my best :) That would be welcome indeed but I haven't found a good picture in Commons. If there is one there or you could add one, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also found File:50_Pfennig_1920.jpg. Haven't seen anything else of mass usage originating before WWII. I like the can picture but we can insert that in place of the foil pic.--R8R (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a historic 'saucepans into Spitfires' image, which captures something of Stalin's quotation (which I've had to reformat, hope that's ok). By all means use the Pfennig. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As an epigraph, the quotation is looking perhaps too fancy. I was able to accommodate the picture at the cost of pictures not always standing close to the text they're supporting (I've come to get used to it over time).--R8R (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've fitted it in by making the quote format less fancy - quote boxes are almost never justified, except perhaps in the case of famous literary figures. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so but I've checked it and you are correct. I stand corrected. Will change it back to the way you suggested.--R8R (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

English

• Use of English is a bit EB1911, e.g. "Berzelius attempted isolation of the metal in 1825". Maybe "B. tried to isolate the metal"... suggest you copyedit the entire article (sorry) to do away with ye olde tea-shoppe Englishche. A bit less of "yield great quantities", "appointed him to the position of director" (forsooth), "the sought-after metal" (egad), etc.

Ha ha! Will do.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• caption "the usually credited discoverer of the aluminium metal" => "usually credited as the discoverer of aluminium metal"

OK.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Please add a note or template stating the article is in American English with IUPAC spelling of Aluminium.

Sure.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

We already have one at the talk page. Is it not good enough?--R8R (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't the first place to look (top of article) and the combination is surprising - one wd expect Aluminum/USA or Aluminium/Brit, I nearly started fixing the errors in the article, so no, it isn't enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I can relate to that. As long as I know, however, we don't expose our regular MoS rules in our articles when we don't want to make a point of it. What we could do, however, is to put an appropriate banner above the editing window. I've requested an admin's help for this.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I too thought the article was in UK English and was about to change "program" to "programme" for consistency. It definitely needs an explanation. Why is there no "US English" banner on the Talk page? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Early history

• "alums"?

Well, technically, "alum" is an umbrella term in English for a number of similar minerals even though we usually refer by this word to a particular one that could be unambiguously called potassium alum. I don't insist on the plural, though.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be discussing Pliny unless there is some plausible way the Romans could have reduced alum to the metal - since they didn't have electrolysis or potassium (?), this seems extremely flaky. "Light" could mean an alloy of tin and zinc, more likely.

I understand your concern. This has been expressed before (back when this text was a part of the main aluminium article) and eventually resulted in the current wording which I think we are fine to have: we don't invent this idea, we quote reliable sources doing so, and we immediately provide a source that does not agree with this idea. Doesn't it sound okay to you?--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The review concerns this one article, now. It's not fine as it stands, no, because it seems to imply that ancient Rome had the technical means. If they did, then at least a footnote or other brief note of explanation from one of the sources is needed. If they didn't, then the source implying they did needs to be introduced with wording indicating that it was an unsustainable theory. The current wording "It is possible that this metal was aluminium" indicates that Pliny might have been correct, in which case we need to know how the theory could be sustained. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I've looked for it and I found a source from 1902 that claims this isn't impossible. I'll add that in a note to the article later.--R8R (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. I guess the caveat is whether the 1902 author knew his chemistry and understood what the Romans could have known. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

On a quick search, it appears that Duboin was a chemist indeed and was referenced as such in some contemporary books/articles. Looks reliable to me. The text also hints that the Romans could indeed do what he suggested.--R8R (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Super. D'Arcy Thompson's Aristotle is from that same period, and excellent in its domain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• How could the Chinese have done that? And when was that dynasty? Again, I don't think we should allow such wild speculation unless there's a plausible mechanism for what is being suggested.

  There's a difference between pure Al and Al-containing alloys: the ancient Chinese (this was a Jin Dynasty tomb) could conceivably have done the latter (alumina was plentiful and could be reduced by coke in the presence of copper, giving Al–Cu alloys) but not the former (the temperatures needed are too high, around 2000 °C, if you don't have the copper around), and that's why this was taken seriously for a long time until a better analysis was done, revealing a 97%(!) Al content for the objects found in the tomb. It is worth noting that the Chinese themselves doubted what they were seeing before the Westerners did: the confusion about an Al–Cu alloy vs. very pure Al could spread because the original Chinese investigation was abruptly curtailed by the Cultural Revolution, but not before some fragmentary details had made their way to the West. ^_^ I suggested this interesting tidbit to R8R, since it made it all the way into Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (Vol. 5, issue 2, p. 193), but I am a little worried that giving the charming history of this observation and doing it justice would take us too far afield. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Many thanks. We must first be concerned with reliability and verifiability. I think the possibility as you've very kindly outlined it is highly relevant and needs to be established in a footnote (efn), with ref to Needham. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. A note is an appropriate idea. Will add one.

I'll add the dates for the dynasty as well.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Most of this, and all of para 2, is "History of alum". Suggest we label this clearly: if we are to have anything about the metal at all, we need convincing evidence, supported by quotations (in Notes or Refs) from reliable sources.

Synthesis of metal

• Rewrite needed: The Humphry Davy paragraph is a bit repetitive, and given the story is just "and then he failed all over again", could be cut down radically.

I think this would be unfair to Davy: I've seen sources referring to him as the first person who was so persistent on the problem. That's why his suggestion for the name of the element gained ground and we know Davy as the person who named aluminum. I haven't added the whole naming story here because this article is a spin-off from Aluminium#History and Aluminium#Etymology is a separate section. Let me know, however, if you want me to add the info on this topic somewhere.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit nonplussed by your multiple answers, all either promising to do something or mumbling about not needing to do anything. The paragraph is repetitive and needs rewriting, period. "More walk, less talk." Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're feeling down but I frankly don't see any justification for that. I could possibly understand the emotion behind this if I talked and talked to you for a week at least, but it took one round of replies that I wrote one hour after you started this review (I specified in the edit summary, "quick responses," so you get the the general idea I'll take a closer look when I have enough spare time in the near future). Also no, as a reviewer you don't have the absolute power like "I said so it must be done." This would be generally against the spirit of Wikipedia, where we first and foremost try to build a consensus if there is any disagreement between editors (could not be the case if we were talking about factual errors, but we're not). Let's try that first.

Let's take a fresh start on this. We provide the setups for many experiments in this section and you even suggested we add it for one experiment for which we don't. Davy's experiments were pretty good for his time. Why would they of all not deserve a description?--R8R (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I was having un mauvais quart d'heure. In the light of day I still think, however, that the section is somewhat repetitive. A little copyediting would be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, will do. Still, I'd want to hear your opinion on Etymology and what I've described above (and if we are to add it, where should we?).--R8R (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any need to repeat the material from the other articles, nor necessarily even to summarize them, though I have no objection to 'Further' or if appropriate 'Main' links with summaries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Silliman "repeated Hare's experiment" - all that's said about Hare is that he "melted alumina but found no metal". Better explain how that could have worked.

Good idea. Will do.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass usage

• How was the metal going to help Stalin win the war? Airframes? The text doesn't say.

Unfortunately, I don't know that myself and my guess would be as good as yours. I'll look for info on the matter, though.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if we don't say why the stuff wd be the slightest use, it's hard to see what use the quote is. A metaphysical metal conveying moral military might, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Stalin needed aluminum to build more aircraft. Added that to a note.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of airframes, recycled aluminium was of the wrong purity for aeronautical use, and the British knew this. Beaverbrook didn't tell the UK public this, but the campaign to recycle aluminium did achieve two other goals: 1) Improving morale by giving the British public the opportunity to personally contribute to the war effort, and 2) driving the price of aluminium down, as the recycled aluminium was used for other purposes.

Images

• The image of Alum states it's from File:Alum.jpg and that it's [therefore] free to use. However, that image is quite different so it's hard to see that the licensing is valid.

Used File:Alum.jpg then.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• The image of Lavoisier lacks a US PD license, a date, and a traceable source.

Done.--R8R (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• The image of Wöhler lacks a US PD license.

Added.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• The graph of production has a 'self' license but the original seems to be USGS so it should have a PD-USGov license instead.

I am not particularly good with licensing but I think this one is right. What comes from the USGS is the data that was used for this graph. The graph itself was created and updated by Wikipedia users.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary

This is an informative and well-cited article on the history of an important element, and I am satisfied it is well up to the required standard for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)