Talk:Boron group

message: OK, who's copying who? I just found almost the exact same entry as this one (word for word) here http://experts.about.com/e/b/bo/Boron_group.htm . It doesn't *seem* to come from here like Answers.com does. Anyone know? --Stretch 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's GFDL license allows anybody to mirror its content, provided proper attribution is given. Femto 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I never noticed the attribution down the bottem --Stretch 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copying

message: I changed the class because it seems big and good enough to be a start class article. If anyone has any objections, feel free to post under here. --Geo7777 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Objection: there are too many web-based sources, and most of these aren't that reliable (wiki.answers.com). There's very little actually useful content for now. I'll change it back first (but don't worry, because I'm thinking of getting this to at least C-class first). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

text: This is much better. I'm promoting it. Thanks! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's getting nice! About the table: there's also InH, add it please :) and also, why not use this format: 
Element         	Oxide    	Hydride     	Maybe more, what about fluorides,chlorides or sulfides?
Boron           	its oxide	all hydrides	
Aluminium, so on	         	            	
BTW, I'm not sure referencing level depend on Start-classness (think of a better expression?) If really so, take a look on lawrencium, because it may be therefore still a Stub--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

text: And also, I'd like to have refs on neutral elements(IV) hydrides, as well as TlO2 (a superoxide?) and all element 113 compounds--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Uut compounds, I think, are webelements.com speculation. While they certainly are plausible, there don't seem to be solid references for them. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

text: You could take alkali metal as an (admittedly not perfect) model, in case you want to improve it further to GA. Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Class 

message: Too little too late, still some comments to make the article better:
* Electronic table isn't put in the lead right. Move it down the article. 
* "The group has previously also been referred to as the earth metals and the triels, from the Latin tri, three, stemming from the naming convention of this group as Group IIIB." Not reflected in History section. 
* "Boron is considered a metalloid, and the rest are considered metals of the poor metals groups." first of all, "metals of the poor metals groups" sounds weird. What about just "poor metals"? Also, what about ununtrium? It is still not confirmed to be one. 
* "Boron occurs sparsely probably because of disruption of its nucleus by bombardment with subatomic particles produced from natural radioactivity. Aluminium occurs widely on earth and in fact, it is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust (7.4%)." OK, but why no mention of heavier ones? At least that they occur in much lower quantities. 
* I don't like indium picture, it gives little expression of how metals looks. Anything to replace? 
** I found another picture of indium rope in the main article, do you think it is better?
* "The boron group is notable in its trends and by some of its elements' characteristics. For example, all of the elements in group 13 are silvery-greyish metals or metalloids." Give another example, boron seems to look completely different from the metals. Maybe instead that boron differs from other elements (borides formation, hardness, refractoriness, volatility of BF3 but not AlF3, absence of metallic bonding, so on)? 
* "This is due to a trend that shows that the stability decreases and rarity of compounds increases with hydrogen." No, the trend is due to this, unless some theoretical proof is given.
** I didn't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that i should reference it? , I decided to take it out completely.
* "indium oxide (In2O3)" it's indium(III) oxide and it's amphoteric as well. "thallium oxide (Tl2O3)" is  thallium(III) oxide. What about In2O and Tl2O? 
* "Fluorine, the first halide" fluorine is a halogen that forms halides :) 
* "It is even hypothesized that ununtrium could form a compound with fluorine, UutF3, before spontaniously decaying due to ununtrium's radioactivity." Proof? , hope that I got it right.
* "and also hypothetically reacting with element 113." proof? , same as above because i couldn't find a "solid" reference.
* "Bromine will react too with most elements, although it is less reactive than both chlorine and fluorine." Seems like you're describing bromine, and not group 13 compounds. 
* "Astatine, the heaviest halogen, has only formed a few compounds due to its radioactvity and short half-life so it is extrapolated to have compounds with the metals including the boron group." proof? , same as the other two
* "Gallium, like aluminium, is a good conductor of heat,[13] almost exactly like indium. Thallium, the heaviest non-synthetic element in the group, is also a good conductor of heat" reword 
** Can you check to see if i reworded it correctly? :)
**:Try something like "Boron, being a metalloid, is an insulator at room temperature, but a good conductor at high temperatures. Unlike boron, the metals in the group are good conductors at usual conditions." Just if info on the metals is the same, no need in separate sentences.
* "The shortest stable isotope, however, is extremely short, being boron's isotope with the least neutrons and a half-life long enough to measure. it is 7B and its half-life is a mere 350±50 x 10−24 s." Is this really needed?
** I put it in purely for comparasion, because I felt that if we put the isotope with the longest half-life that we should put the shortest one too, but if you feel that it is not needed I can remove it.
* "This group is special with its isotopes because it contains some of the heaviest stable isotopes ever found. Only lead has a heavier stable isotope." Maybe add that all isotopes with Z>40 are theoretically instable? See stable isotope for details. Also, 115In is not stable. In fact, maybe more contents here? (Maybe not) 
** I will try to add content after.
I'll add more later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  R8R Gtrs comments 

message: The chemistry of the group should be described in a way that what are the common properties, like oxidation state 3+. The increasing stability of oxidation state 1+ and making it the dominant one in thallium. This comparison of the whole group should be done in every section. --Stone (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by stone 

message: Hi, sorry I won't be able to go on wikipedia that much I'm going to be away much of the time. I will try to fix more of the mistakes but you should probably know that I'm terrible at spelling and also I'm still in school (not graduated) so I may not have enough time for everything but I really find this interesting so I will try as much as possible. Thanks for the comments, they really helped to shape up the article. I will think about doing a peer review but i thought that it was for very developed articles like A-class but i still would be delighted to try it. Thanks :)--Geo7777 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Comments 

message: A few quick remarks about issues encountered while copy-editing:
* Sensational comments about thallium poisoning were toned down.
* A couple of the abundance percentages were off by a factor of ten (the source used ppm). While it is nice to have comparable measures all the way down the group, the figures for the rarer elements are awfully small to represent in %.
* Unless I misread it, the reference cited for the list of top indium producers actually referred to those countries' reserves. Perhaps both the reserves and the production, for each of the elements in the section, should be covered: they're not necessarily correlated.
* The subheads under Toxicity created rather 'mixed bags' WRT that property, so I removed them, putting the (mostly) non-toxic elements in one paragraph.
—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: *Prose needs some work.
*We need more content on the periodic trends down the group.
*A properties table and a periodic table highlighting the group 13 elements would also be nice.
Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I tagged the statement "The pure element has been used as a dopant in semiconductors" as needed a better source, as the source given is published by a "Creation Research" organization. The book contains stuff like:  and much other stuff unsuitable for a reliable source on a chemistry topic. Storkk (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|better source}} tag

message: The last paragraph of the History section purports to give the history of element 113. It is called nihonium because RIKEN in Japan earned credit for first synthesizing it. But this article assigns the credit elsewhere, ignoring RIKEN. See Nihonium.
--  Solo Owl   04:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. The rest of the article continues to be a disappointment, though given the great differences between boron and the rest of the group it will probably remain so for a while. Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History – Nihonium 

message: For compounds having single covalent bonds:
* Tetrahedral molecular geometry is characteristic for group 14 compounds (neutral) and group 15 (1+).
* Trigonal pyramidal molecular geometry is characteristic for group 15 compounds (neutral) and group 16 (1+).
* Bent molecular geometry is characteristic for group 16 compounds (neutral) and—by extrapolation—group 17 (1+): see fluoronium.
Can anything of the sort be said for group 13? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular geometry 

message: Why would nihonium be highly toxic due to radioactivity? Those are 2 different things. For example, bismuth is radioactive (more than a billion times the age of the universe) but is not significantly toxic. Certainly, thallium is definitely highly toxic, but toxicity and radioactivity are 2 different things. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity