Talk:Sodium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I might as well give this a try! Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Physical

• This article is a little too focused on "what" and not enough on "why". We read that Na is a soft metal: cool, but why? We hear that it is not very dense, but why? We hear that it conducts heat and electricity well, but why? (They all have the same answer, going back to the [Ne]3s¹ electron configuration; but this should be in there.)

  I mentioned it is because it has only one valence electron and you expanded by saying it results in weak metallic bond. I think this issue is resolved. Fuortu (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, that's fine. Double sharp (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Similarly it strikes me that we should allot more explanation and text to why Na has the properties it does at STP. It's OK to talk about the high-pressure work, but we should probably explain the standard-conditions properties first.

  I added more details about the properties at STP. Do you think it still needs more discussion? Fuortu (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  It's OK now. Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Can we have a more reliable source for the colour of Na gas? The current one is I suppose acceptable given its provenance, but if we can do better, I'd strongly prefer that.

  I couldn't find a reliable source, so I changed the information and added a reliable source. Fuortu (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  Are you sure that's what is meant by the source? From what I read, yellow is the 3s¹–3p¹ doublet absorption line (which would tend to strengthen the idea that it is violet in the gaseous state, since violet is the complement of yellow). In that case, this is stated already in the next paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  It says that sodium gives yellow colour after heating and colour doesn't change even after giving more heat. I removed it because it is discussed in next paragraph. Is that alright? Fuortu (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  That's fine. Double sharp (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• One major omission is atomic properties – surely we need to have something about the first ionisation energy and electropositivity?

   Done Fuortu (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Melting and boiling points? Preferably in the context of the trend down group 1?

  I think it's  Done, please tell me if I need to add more about it. Fuortu (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  I've added a little more myself, so I think it's OK now. Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Fuortu (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry

• Another thing I notice in this article is a tendency to give lots of facts and not show how they all come from a few basic principles. Shouldn't we mention how Na chemistry is mostly just that of Na⁺ (even in organosodium compounds)?

  I added that sodium's most common oxidation state is +1. We also explained why in previous paragraph. I think this issue is addressed. Fuortu (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  OK. Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we discuss the oxides together with the salts? I get that they're not technically salts, but they are ionic compounds as well following the same principles.

  Yes, I moved some discussion about oxides to "salts" and now they both are in one section. Fuortu (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  OK. Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't the last paragraph of "salts" more about applications?

  Moved it to appropriate section. Fuortu (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Great! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• No coordination chemistry? We mention the crown-ether complex, yes, but there is enough to fill a section. (See Greenwood & Earnshaw)

  I think we have a reasonable amount now; it's difficult to say any more without having to talk about K, Rb, and Cs as well. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• One other thing that is not talked about is intermetallic compounds, like the alloys with K, Au, and Hg

  I added a section about intermetallic compounds. Thoughts? Fuortu (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  OK, that works. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Commercial production

• End of penultimate paragraph is unreferenced.

  Added reliable sources. Fuortu (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  OK, thank you! Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Biological role

• Some explanation of how Na has this role would be welcome.

  I am not sure what exactly we should explain. Can you please let me know? Fuortu (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  From reading on this (as you can see, I am more well-versed in chemistry than in biology...), we only need to add that it is Na⁺ functioning as an electrolyte. Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  I mentioned that Na⁺ is important electrolyte in neuron function. I think this addresses the problem. Fuortu (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that will suffice. Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The rest looks all right at first glance. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that the organisation be better decided upon – the story of ²³Na is now split between "isotopes" and "occurrence", and I think it fits better in the former. Likewise, if you would like to keep the NaK graph (and I am a little doubtful on that, since it is quite large), I do believe we need a large discussion of intermetallic compounds before it. It is a little jarring IMHO to talk about such a compound when it has not even been mentioned earlier that this sort of thing is a possibility at all. Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review. I'll try to fix the issues you've noted above as soon as possible. Fuortu (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think ²³Na should be in "occurrence" section because it is created in stars. Fuortu (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but then it's oddly split from the cosmogenic production of ²²Na and ²⁴Na. So I've moved it up to "isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Thanks Fuortu (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you take a look at potassium, which is also a famous alkali metal and a GA. It may very well be helpful. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Will do, thanks :) Fuortu (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this nomination is going very well, so I do believe that I will be awarding GA status at the end of it after my remaining comments are addressed. Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think all the comments have been addressed, so I see no obstacle to passing the review. Thank you for your work on this article, and hope to see you again working on chemical elements! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It has been great to work with you on this article. Again, thanks for reviewing this article. :) Fuortu (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)