Talk:Sodium sulfate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal Sodium sulfate is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Core	This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sodium sulfate was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-21

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Natsci.

Contents 1 Melting point 2 Image 3 Trona? 4 Conversion from Glauber's salt article 5 Go on. 6 Delisted GA 7 Failed "good article" nomination 8 Good Article Review

[edit] Melting point

Is 32.4 C really the temperature at which this salt undergoes a phase transition, or is that the temperature that the hydrated crystal loses it's water molecules (and subsequently, the salt dissolves in the freshly released water)? Pkeck 05:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the latter that occurs, it dissolves into its water of hydration. 32.4 C is a kind-of magic temperature for Na2SO4. If you look in the Physical and chemical properties section you can see this in the graph, and also in the final paragraph: "This nonconformity can be explained in terms of hydration, since 32.4 °C corresponds with the temperature at which the crystalline decahydrate (Glauber's salt) changes to give a sulfate liquid phase and an anhydrous solid phase." Walkerma 16:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I have some nice images of crystals of this compound that will do it more justice than the little pile of white crystals on a watchglass. I will add the image in with the other two. If you feel that it should be moved to a seperate part of the article or if the original or my image should be completely removed, don't hesistate to say something. Dormroomchemist 07:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

-I'm not too surefooted with posting images and the sandbox feature appears to have been repeatedly hacked, so I'm not going to post it tonight. When I viewed the image in its final size, I was unimpressed, so I will grow a large single crystal of the decahydrate (very easy) and post that. Dormroomchemist 07:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted the original picture. If you can get a nice crystal, that would be great! I've found lighting to be critical for getting nice pictures of crystals, bright sunlight is best. Let me know if you need help uploading the image, and also I recommend you post to Commons] so other Wikipedias can use your picture. Be sure to put GFDL, CC or public domain for the copyright. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trona?

Under other names, Trona is listed, but trona is the name for the mineral form of (Na3HCO3CO3·2H2O), according to the article on trona. I am removing this error from the page. If I am somehow wrong, please correct me. Dormroomchemist 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who put this information in, because I got it from Kirk-Othmer, but in my reading since that time I've seen it used in reference to the carbonate. I seem to recall Kirk-Othmer also mentioned that much of the US supply comes from a town called, you guessed, Trona. I wonder if both minerals occur together? Anyway, better to be safe - thanks for removing it. Walkerma 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion from Glauber's salt article

I plan to expand this article to a full-sized chemistry article soon. Does anyone mind if I rename it as sodium sulfate, with Glauber's salt as a redirect? I will not remove the interesting background on Glauber's salt, don't worry! Walkerma 21:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Of course we don't mind: this is the proper thing to do. If I had had the time to start on it, the renaming would be the first action. Support. Wim van Dorst 20:58, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC).

[edit] Go on.

Although sodium sulfate is generally regarded as non-toxic, handle it with care.

Keep going...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.72.9.37 (talk • contribs).

Thanks! Not exactly sure what you mean, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

This article has been removed from the GA list due to lack of references. Tarret 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The lead goes straight into the details without really giving an introduction.

2. Factually accurate?: More references could help. The following statement has perhaps too many references: "Sodium sulfate is chemically very stable, being unreactive toward most oxidising or reducing agents at normal temperatures." This leaves entire sections unreferenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: "History" and "Precautions" need expansion.

4. Neutral point of view?: Good.

5. Article stability? Good.

6. Images?: Good.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

The article was GA-delisted for failing the in-line references technical requirement. This has been taken care of, and the article was renominated. The renominated failed because of the above mentioned arguments. In my perceptions, the requirements for GA are over-estimated by the GA-renomination auditor. This article in my perception should very reasonably be considered GA-class or even A-Class, albeit not FA-Class yet. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

I think I would agree that this article is good (admittedly I have some bias), but also KOH with his slightly "caustic" (geddit?) comments has given us a thoughtful, objective review. We should really try and find which specific things he disliked (e.g., which sections need improvement in prose). I'm sure that if we try and polish this article, we can make it better; if we do a good job of polishing we can nominate it for FA. I know many of our better articles have specific sections (often on trivia) that have attracted many short anon contributions, and these may need to be polished or chopped down - in this article it's the "other applications".

From what I've seen of the GA reviews, one problem we may face is that chemical papers do have their own style, and some stock phrases. A non-chemist may not like some of these phrases, and think them odd. I'm thinking of the toluene review recently, where the reviewer disliked things like "Around 25 times more reactive" and "Undergoes smooth sulfonation". These are standard chemistry phrases you'll find both in papers and textbooks, but clearly they sound funny to non-chemists. I think we need to try and find out what the reviewer specifically dislikes, and see if we can come up with things that sound OK to both chemists and non-chemists alike. What would they prefer? (Actually I think toluene should be a B, it needs work IMHO). It's a nuisance, I agree, but I suspect that we may end up with an article that is stronger for it.

There is another issue here, namely that GA and FA are widely considered to be getting closer and closer together in terms of standards. It used to be that there was a perceptible difference between the prose standards allowed for GA compared to FA, but I think that has largely disappeared. I think it became difficult to hold the line and pass GAs when imperfections were apparent to the experienced reviewer. The main difference now, I think, is that there is only one reviewer spotting things instead of several! But pass/fail doesn't really matter too much overall - we should always be striving to make the articles better. Walkerma 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you bring forward the important points, as well as the good positive attitude towards continuous improvement with both have my full support. That GA and FA are getting closer is a pity, in my humble opinion, as I'm don't feel like making an effort on behalf of GA, and shall be going for the more substantial and better balanced discussion of FA instead. And I agree on the other re-nominations failing (hence B-Class), so there I intentionally did not ask for a review. PS. Have a nice trip. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC).