Wikipedia:Peer review/Raney nickel/archive1

Raney nickel

This is an article I brought up from a mere dicdef to the more or less complete article that stands today. My intention with this peer review is not so much try to bring the article to Featured status but rather see if the subject is understandable by a non-chemist. Since I think the article is rather technical and the prose may be a bit dry, it would be great if more people read it and came up with suggestions to make it more readable. And some copyediting wouldn't be bad either. Your help is much appreciated :-D -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I am probably not the person to ensure readability for a non-chemist, but I will see what I can do in the way of copy-editing. Physchim62 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additions! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of a third metal changes the phase diagram of the alloy to that of a ternary alloy. What makes the phase diagram of a ternary allow interesting? Does it change the allow to a ternary alloy, or just the phase diagram? Is there another term which can be used in place of phase diagram? As a non-chemist, a phase diagram sounds like a graphical representation of a physical phenomenon. What is the name of that phenomenon? Pburka 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the phenomenon is phase equilibrium. I don't like that sentence either: how about "The addition of a third metal changes the stability of some of the different phases." It is difficult to avoid the technical term phase, but I will have a think about it. Physchim62 17:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if the Applications section included a practical example the average reader could relate to. Is the reduction of benzene to cyclohexane such an example? Can this be related to the production of something non-chemists would use everyday? Pburka 15:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the use of the hazardous materials images in the Safety section. The first and third paragraphs have images. Can an image be added for the second paragraph? Pburka 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I noted your comments and will make the necessary changes. "Phase diagram" has a precise meaning and I can't think of other terms to replace it, although I agree that a bit of an explanation would be warranted. The cyclohexane example is intended to be common application, see the change now in the article. For the safety section, there is no safety label for 'irritant' as far as I know. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a symbol for irritant, it is exactly the same as the symbol for harmful which is on the third paragraph, see European chemical hazard symbol. Nickel is not officially classified as an irritant, although nickel allergies are well known: the reason is partly technical, and partly political... Physchim62 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah! Yes, my thoughts exactly (I should have known that :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of interest to note that Raney's choice of an alloy with 50% nickel-silicon content was fortuitous and without any real scientific basis. However, this is the preferred alloy composition for production of Raney nickel catalysts currently in use. This confuses me. Is it supposed to say nickle-aluminium? Pburka 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- It actually refers to both Al and Si. I've fixed that now since only the Al ratio is truly relevant for that paragraph. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for input from a non-chemist. I haven't had a chemistry lesson since I was 13 years of age and took no science subjects past age 15. Therefore "Alloy composition is very important because the quenching process produces a number of different Ni/Al phases that have different leaching properties." was the first point at which I got utterly lost. Having said that I see no advantage in turning the article into something I would understand. Were you to accomplish such an onerous task (which would require explanation of all difficult terms involved in the article with reasons why I should care) it's still unlikely that the information would be of any use to me and - in its new form - would no longer be of any use to those it could have been. If it were the basic chemistry article I were looking at then, yes, I feel I should have my hand held. But with a substance I would not - as a layman - have any cause to encounter, then I can cope with being baffled. --bodnotbod 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, if you'll excuse me barging in from WP:Chem: how about introducing a nice chemical infobox {{chembox}} for presenting some info? And pictures? And some crystallography? It sounds like a metal, so can you construct anything with it, or is it only the famous catalyst? Just wondering, trying to be helpful. Wim van Dorst 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I thought of adding an infobox but decided against it because the only data I would be able to fill in would be density and solubility. I haven't even seen a consistent CAS number assigned to it (either the nickel or nickel aluminide numbers are quoted). I agree on the need for a picture, but I'm currently away from the lab and won't be able to get one till December. I'll look into crystallographic data since I remember seeing some powder XRDs of commercial Raney nickel in an article (single-crystal XRD is not possible, however). Finally, the article only refers to the catalyst; an article on the metal itself should go to nickel aluminide, which, if I remember correctly, is used to reinforce some steels or something like that and has substantially different properties because of its non-porous structure. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think a chembox is really warrented here as it is more of a material than a chemical. Physchim62 12:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]