# Talk:Aluminium

Please change the spelling of color to colour, the English spelling 2405:DA40:3A3F:6400:898B:E542:2BF3:B0B8 (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Despite using the "British" version of the word aluminium, this article is written in American English with the exception of IUPAC spellings. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia editing guidelines if you want to make good faith contributions rather than using this as a platform to grant yourself some kind of nationalistic masturbatory victory. Andronom (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Andronom - you need to pull back on the vitriol and read up on other Wikipedia guidelines of No personal attacks, and to also actually understand the concept of good faith.  The OP's request is perfectly valid, and given that the article doesn't contain a regional engvar template - but it does contain a {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2024}} rather than an MDY preference, it would seem logical that the article adheres to UK Engvar - especially to a new or inexperienced editor.
This request seems to be a perfect example of Good faith, whereas yours is distinctly the opposite.  You seem to be new here as well, so I've left you a Welcome template on your talk page - I advise you read it.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand that it may be difficult for many people to interpret charge through text or other means of communication, so no worries for your misunderstanding Andronom (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Andronom - is that statement directed at me?  What exactly have I misunderstood?  It seems fairly straightforward - An editor asked for a change, you were rude in response, and I asked you not to be so.  Where's the misunderstanding?  To be honest, even if you're referring to the OP with their request the issue is not so much their request in the first place but your inappropriate (and unnecessary, given that Alpha Beta Delta Lambda had answered and explained why it wasn't going to happen) response.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)


### Aluminium
This is one of the most important element articles; I improved this article several years ago and now I'd like to bring it to the FA level. I think we're close to that, but I'd appreciate additional input, both from people who specialize in some of the topics this article touches on (physics, chemistry, geology, industrial production, biology) and from average readers who could ensure this important article is digestible for a common reader.
Thanks, R8R (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Drive by comments from Noleander
Just a few random notes.  If another reviewer comes along, don't let my comments here dissuade you from doing a full Peer Review.
Lead, wording:    It has a density lower than that of other common metals, ... consider  It has a density lower than  other common metals,  ...
Agreed.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Lead, wording:  no living organism is known to metabolize aluminium salts, but this aluminium is well tolerated by plants and animals.  Consider  no living organism is known to metabolize aluminium salts, but this form [or  these forms] of  aluminium is well tolerated by plants and animals.
It can be just "aluminium," it doesn't have to be more complicated than that.--R8R (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Lead balance?  Despite its prevalence in the environment, no living organism is known to metabolize aluminium salts, but this aluminium is well tolerated by plants and animals. Because of the abundance of these salts, the potential for a biological role for them is of interest, and studies are ongoing.    That is one of four paragraphs in the lead. I'm not an expert in Aluminum, but do the salts deserve 25% of the lead paragraphs?  Certainly there is other material in the body that deserve to be the lead more?
I've had similar concerns about history. The biological part is only two sentences long, so it seems fine. It doesn't seem like there is another paragraph of which this one could be a part.--R8R (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Caption: Aluminium ingot from furnace Why is "from furnace" included?  are there multiple sources of ingots? If not,  maybe omit "from furnace".
Agreed--R8R (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Clarify:  Aluminium's low density compared to most other metals arises from the fact that its nuclei are much lighter, while difference in the unit cell size does not compensate for this difference  Consider wording that makes that plainer, maybe something like Aluminium's low density compared to most other metals arises from the fact that its unit cell size is relatively large in proportion to the number of nucleons [or, weight of nuclei]
I tried your wording. I'm not entirely sure it's easier to digest as it combines two facts into one, but I'll go with it for now.--R8R (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Clarify Aluminium is an excellent thermal and electrical conductor, having around 60% the conductivity of copper, both thermal and electrical, while having only 30% of copper's density Is there data that lets you word it more effectively?  something like Aluminium is an excellent thermal and electrical conductor, and the amount of aluminum required to match the same amperage in copper weighs only half as much ... or something like that.
I like your wording and will go with it.--R8R (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Link?   Can you provide a wikilink for "congener" .. the term is used three times; I don't know what it means.
I've simply replaced the word with a simpler alternative.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Applications section: I see its potential use w/ thermite is mentioned above, but readers really love specific examples.   Perhaps in Application section you could mention use for  train track repair using thermite w/ aluminum powder.   FA criteria require the prose to be "engaging" and those sorts of tidbits really catch readers attention.
In a similar vein:  The oxide layer on aluminium is also destroyed by contact with mercury due to amalgamation or with salts of some electropositive metals.  If the sources support it, throwing in a tidbit like For this reason, mercury is prohibited in airports or on aircraft without special handling.  I'm not saying to stray into sensationalism, but specific real-world examples can really grab reader's attention.
It looks like you chose to alphabetize the "See Also" section.  Consider also alphabetizing the Categories at the bottom (not required for FA; just a thought)
"Notes" section:  Citations for footnotes:  I think FA will require citations for facts stated in footnotes.  There are many cites in the footnotes already, which is good. And some probably don't need a cite, e.g.  nowadays spelled "argile"  But I can see a handful of facts in the footnotes that have no cites.
@Noleander: On the first glance it seems like non-trivial claims are cited. Which ones do you think require citations?--R8R (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Only a couple:
Davy's 1812 written usage of the word aluminum was predated by other authors' usage ..
Abundances in the source are listed relative ...
Noleander (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Large quotes in cite: move to footnote?  I see that there are two cites that have large quotes attached (example: one is Potassium, acting upon alumine and glucine, produces pyrophoric substances of a dark grey colour, which burnt, throwing off brilliant sparks, and leaving behind alkali and earth, and which, when thrown into water, decomposed it with great violence. The result of this experiment is not wholly decisive as to the existence of what might be called aluminium and glucinium  That is not prohibited, but - to my eyes - it ruins the aesthetics of the clean, tight cite columns.  Consider simply sticking the quote into an "efn" footnote (and use the same cite for the footnote).  It only takes about 30 seconds to do that, and the quote then moves into the "Notes" area.  Again, not required, just a suggestion.
Consider adding "author-link" field to some cites or sources, if the authors have WP articles.
ISBN:  A reference tool is showing a warning for Clapham, John Harold; Power, Eileen Edna (1941). The Cambridge Economic History of Europe: From the Decline of the Roman Empire. CUP Archive. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-521-08710-0.   ISBN was invented in 1970, so that warning appears when a source has a publication date before 1970, but also has an ISBN.    I clicked on the URL for that book, and it says it is an edition (or reprint) from 1977, so the source cite template should probably use    |year=1977 |orig-year=1941  .  However, it looks like it is Volume 5, and they add a volume about every ten years? So maybe it should be     |year=1977 |orig-year=1941 |volume=V     or     |year=1977 |volume=V   
Ha!  Using a photo of recyling bins you uploaded seven years ago ... this article is a long-term project for you :-)
I was actually away from Wikipedia in 2021--25. But now that I've dealt with important things IRL, I realized I've been missing this hobby and came back :)--R8R (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Wording?  British chemist Humphry Davy, ... is credited as the person who named the element.  Can you delete "is credited"?  Or is there some controversy?  if a controversy, say so.
The section explains it quite in detail: the name "aluminium" was used by other people first, but because Davy used similar "alumium" first, which inspired "aluminium," he usually gets the credit.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm also getting a warning on source Young, Thomas (1812). "Elements of Chemical Philosophy By Sir Humphry Davy". Quarterly Review. VIII (15): 72. ISBN 978-0-217-88947-6. 210   The warning is because this is a journal article from 1812, so it should not have an ISBN.   I'm not sure where the displayed ISBN came from; I click the URL and it took me to a bound copy of old copies of the journal, but there is no ISBN.  Consider deleting the ISBN from the source.
The ISBN is for the 2009 republishing, so it makes sense. I'll need to look into incorporating the 2009 republishing into the citation, though.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
That's all I have.  Great article!  I'm sure it will do fine in the FA nomination.  Noleander (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for driving by! I will begin to work on these comments this weekend at the very latest.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Oops, I actually thought I could do it on the weekend. I hope I'll be able to start tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Ride-by comments from RoySmith
Like a drive-by, but on a more ecologically friendly vehicle.

One of my perrenial issues when reviewing technical articles is over-use of technical terms without explaining them, per WP:TECHNICAL, and this is a good example.  In addition to terms however, just the basic nomenclature is going to be a blocker for much of our target audience, i.e. 26Al.  I'll list other things as I go along: isotope, stable, radioactive, half-life, nucleosynthesis, spallation, cosmic rays, differentiation, mass number, metastable, 3s2 3p1, noble gas, ionization energy, electronegativity, face centered cubic crystal, metallic bonding, hexagonal close-packed, electrical resistivity, critical magnetic field, congeners, post-transition metal, cation, covalency ... well, you get the idea, I'll leave you to go through the rest of the article and find the rest.
There's a dividing line somewhere between making the article accessible and spelling everything out. "Stable isotope" is a good example: while it could be explained what radioactive decay is and that stability is lack thereof and that an isotope is a nuclide (and btw also explain what a nuclide is) of an element, this would go way too much into detail. However, the goal of this article should not be to educate the reader about every aspect of an article when there is an article explaining everything in detail; otherwise, Wikipedia would be very repetitive and redundant. I've added wikilinks where there were none; that was a good call, thank you. I've also gone through the article and added some more.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Pure aluminium is quite soft and lacking in strength You might want to explain how softness and strength differ.
I think going into that is offtopic, but I've added the links.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
You compare aluminum to steel, which is sort of an apples-to-oranges thing since one is an element, the other is an alloy.  This is expecially true when you say things like "nuclei are much lighter"; there's no such thing as a "steel nucleus".
It is compared to steel in the subsection on bulk scale materials, and the sentence on nuclei specifically mentions metals, not steel.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for riding by! I got overwhelmed by RL stuff recently, but I hope to be able to dedicate more time for Wikipedia from now on.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)


#### Drive by comments from Ldm1954
Probably the wrong format...my first WP Peer Review

My main comment is that this seems to have been written mainly by chemists, and has good coverage of things like the chemical properties and some compounds. However it is weak on usage of the metal itself. There is masses of info, for instance the Industry Statistics [1].What about more on the metallurgical properties? A bit more about the alloys?
What about alumina as a refractory, both in furnaces and as a catalyst support?
Ldm1954 (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Kusma
Just one remark for now:

Aluminium sulfate has an LD50 of 6207 mg/kg (oral, mouse), which corresponds to 435 grams (about one pound) for a 70 kg (150 lb) mouse. A 70 kg mouse??
Might do a full review in a bit. —Kusma (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Lead: Perhaps consider reordering a bit with more important info at the start? In particular, more emphasis could be on that it is a metal. The abundance of aluminium in the universe has little to do with having only one stable isotope, not sure why these are combined.
The sentence "Aluminium is found on Earth primarily in rocks in the crust, where it is the third-most abundant element, after oxygen and silicon, rather than in the mantle, and virtually never as the free metal." needlessly mixes several different concepts.
Isotopes: "The standard atomic weight of aluminium is low in comparison with many other metals." this seems out of place in a section on isotopes.
Electron shell: "The few electrons that are available for metallic bonding in aluminium are a probable cause for it being soft with a low melting point and low electrical resistivity." this is the first time we hear that only few electrons are available for bonding.
Bulk: "an appearance ranging from silvery white to dull gray depending on its surface roughness" this is more precise than the lead, which states " It visually resembles silver, both in its color and in its great ability to reflect light" without mentioning the dependence on surface roughness.
"Aluminium is not as strong or stiff as steel, but the low density makes up for this in the aerospace industry and for many other applications where light weight and relatively high strength are crucial. Pure aluminium is quite soft and lacking in strength." Is the first "aluminium" not meant to mean pure aluminium here? I assume for most of the section that when nothing else is said, we are talking about pure aluminium.
Most of the Chemistry section went a little over my head.
Earth: ore bauxite: MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
History: who are "the ancients"? The section reads quite Eurocentric.
"The ancients are known to have used alum [..] for city defense." how did they use it for city defense?
What does "earth" mean in the context here?
It would be good to explain what alum and alumina are here.
"In 2021, prices for industrial metals such as aluminium have soared to near-record levels as energy shortages in China drive up costs for electricity." is this still current?
The aluminum/aluminium story is told rather confusingly: we have "Both spellings have coexisted since" Davy in Origins, then in "Spelling" we get additional information and "This name persisted: although the -um spelling was occasionally used in Britain, the American scientific language used -ium from the start." If Americans originally used "aluminium" but now use "aluminum" maybe try to write this in chronological order?
"Thonerdemetall" and "argillium" are not really parts of the etymology of alumin(i)um.
The whole "Origins" and "Spelling" are not really "etymology", they are about the history of the spelling of aluminium/aluminum in various countries and by various users. There might be better section titles.
Production and refinement: the "global per capita stock of aluminium in use in society" data seems to be from 2005 or so; at least the definition of more developed countries is from then. Best to explain when the data is from and what you mean by "more-developed countries".
Hall–Héroult process: "Anodes of the electrolysis cell either bake at the process or are prebaked" what does that mean?
Compounds: "Organoaluminiums are used as Lewis acids and co-catalysts" what is a "co-catalyst" and it what sense is this an application?
Treatment: are the sources here WP:MEDRS compliant?
Overall the article still requires some work to get to FA level. I wish you success with it, it is great to see people tackle basic articles like this one. —Kusma (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The source to this claim links to a paper from 2003, but the estimated abundance bar chart in Abundance of the chemical elements from 2016 shows aluminum in 14th.
This site also has aluminum marked as the 14th, with the data sourced from Mathematica. Pingohits (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Can we add electron and hole mobilities under properties? Aluminium supposedly has a fairly high hole mobility (for a metal). - Rod57 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)