Talk:Scandium

Scandium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Scandium is part of the Group 3 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 9, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
August 25, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Information Sources: Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Scandium. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.

Classification

This article says that scandium "has been classified as a rare-earth element, together with yttrium and the lanthanides." That's inconsistent with the article on transition metals, which includes scandium. I suggest that it would be better to follow the example of the yttrium article, which classifies yttrium first and foremost as a transition metal while noting that it has also been classified as a rare-earth. Tom239 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are various classifications.

As a geochemist & mineralogist, I treat Sc, Y, and Th, as ones belonging to the REE group.

The constitution of the REE group has little to do with one elements' placing or non-placing in the d or f block. It has to do with common geochemical behaviour of these elements = behaviour in the nature. Thus, in minerals, Th is almost always coexisting with the Ln, but also with Y; and the latter - very often with Sc. The more, both Sc and Ln belong to the HFSE (high-field strength elements) group.Eudialytos (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the text should be updated to say this? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in Isotopes section.

The isotopes section is poorly sourced. It primarily points to NUBASE but in my opinion that source is useful for information about individual isotopes. Using it for overviews is analysis that should be left to secondary refs. For example the NUBASE lists ³⁶Sc, but the article says the known isotopes begin at ³⁷Sc. Consequently an editor has either made a mistake or a judgement.

Other issues: The Dronchi ref is used for decay mode for ⁴⁵Sc, but it has no such information. I created a paragraph to match that source.

The Michigan State news site it used for "The known isotopes of scandium range" but it does not say this. I moved it to the new paragraph. I still think this paper should not be used. It says very little of interest to our readers and it is a primary ref with no secondary review. No, the news cite does not count. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are only really using the paper for two things: (1) that these light isotopes have been reported and (2) that they drip protons immediately. The range of isotopes that are known seems interesting enough as a small fact to give. If we didn't use the primary ref, then we could not give the range correctly. I think it would be slightly worse to give an incorrect range (since those isotopes have in fact been reported) than it is to give a correct one, citing the primary ref (which is the source), while at the same time not really using the primary ref in much greater depth than that. Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've conceded the Dronchi ref as not worth fighting over. But what about the paragraph that (now) starts "The primary decay mode at masses lower..."? How can I verify the content of that paragraph using NUBASE? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By looking up each scandium isotope in it and examining the column "Decay modes and intensities (%)". Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be sufficient to verify the paragraph. You would have take careful notes and compare across lines in the table, ensuring that the entries for all of the values below 45 agreed with each other, etc. In the row for ³⁷Sc you find "p?". Also 38. What to make of that? You have to make a judgement. For ⁴¹Sc you find 3 rows. Which one applies? ⁴²Sc is marked with a beta character, contradicting the content in the article. ⁴³Sc has three entries, one blank and two marked "IT=100", a decay mode not mentioned in the article.

Basically this paragraph does not verify even against the NUBASE reference which I think is not adequate. NUBASE is a tool for experts, not a secondary source for Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the early pages in NUBASE already note (when they explain the letters on p. 16), the second and third ⁴¹Sc rows are isomers. Same story for ⁴³Sc: the first row shows β⁺ (i.e. positron emission or electron capture), and the others are for isomers (when the paragraph is clearly meant to be about ground states). I've corrected and clarified the paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this just illustrates my point: NUBASE is a source that requires expert to verify the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]