# Talk:Rhodium

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:23, 6 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 11:21, 24 May 2005). 24 May 2005

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Rhodium. 
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.

 

A lot of things changed in the article. I had a look and for me it looks much better than in October 2008 and I would promote it if nobody objects!--Stone (talk)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhodium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The prose is very good, easy to read. Shouldn't be too difficult for most readers to understand.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The article is adequately referenced, with reliable sources. Looks good.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The major aspects of the article are covered, including the chemical properties, discovery, applications, etc. I think it might be a good idea to move the 'occurrence' section up to fall immediately after 'characteristics' -- so the article would flow more naturally from a description of it's properties to its occurrence in nature or man-made activities.
Moved the occurrence section.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The 'history' section is usually the first section, immediately after the lead. In this case, it might be more accurate to change the title of that section to 'discovery' as well, since it really covers the discovery of the element.
Moved the history section and expanded it by the two mayor applications which were used in the early 2000s century in the 1920s and the 3-way converter in the mid 1970s.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead section is also too short, and doesn't really accurately summarize the article. For one, the applications section states that the primary use is in catalytic converters in automobiles, but this isn't even mentioned in the lead.
Expanded the lead with the applications.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article meets all WP:NPOV guidelines and requirements.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Not really over 50 edits since January, so I'd say the article is very stable.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The images are all tagged and captioned as appropriately required.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This article is in excellent shape! Save a few minor issues with criterion #3, I think this article meets the GA criteria. It can be promoted once the issues raised above are satisfied. I'll put it on hold until 6/23/2010, so that the issues can be resolved. WTF? (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Articles passes. WTF? (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/catalytic-converter-theft-south-africa-rhodium/2021/03/03/dc288192-777d-11eb-9489-8f7dacd51e75_story.html
— Jo3sampl (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

See c:File:Rhodium 78g sample.jpg. On its talk page, i mention that the description was originally in English and German, and i tried to add Finnish and Spanish, but there was a mistake in the wikicode, and the description didn't show properly. Please fix the wikicode; so that all four languages show, and the description looks the way it should. I repeatedly tried to fix the wikicode, but couldn't. See c:Template:Multilingual description; i looked at that template, but still couldn't figure out how to fix the wikicode. This might also be helpful(?): c:Commons:Language policy. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It's odd that all sources state rhodium to be silvery white, when there are, albeit few, images where it is clearly a very slight pink color. I'd attach images that fall under this category here if I could, but most notably, the image used on wikipedia has it. 
And I know I'm not crazy because I've used color pickers on the images in question, and in certain places you can clearly find that the pixel has slightly more red than other colors.
Why could this be? Is it just that under insufficient lighting there isn't enough color for it to reflect or because the cameras pick up infrared being reflected? Should the color of the metal be relabeled? Thor3005 (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be a leftover from some of the chlorides, since those are very red, but I'm not sure Crystallyn0 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)