This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elements High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Rocks and minerals Low‑importance Rhodium is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Rhodium 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 15, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

Archives

Archive 1

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

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)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article meets all WP:NPOV guidelines and requirements.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Not really over 50 edits since January, so I'd say the article is very stable.

3. 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.

4. 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)[reply]

Looks good. Articles passes. WTF? (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]