Talk:Electrowinning

This article was reviewed by Shoutwire on March 7, 2007.
Comments: Grade: C-. The author's handle on Shoutwire is bulshoy. See Wikipedia:External peer review/Shoutwire March 2007.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Only parts of this text are lifted from external sources; I think there's only two:

As long as you used them as refernce w/out any direct copy/pastes, that is ok. If that's the case, you can revert away my edits. I haven't posted this on the master copyvio page b/c I suspected that it wasn't a "true" copyvio. Feco

They have been copied & pasted, but I should have them edited into a non violating form shortly Josh Parris ✉ 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Electrowinning vs. electrorefining

They are not synonymous as the first sentence would imply. Electrowinning is generally recovery from a leach solution with an inert anode. Electrorefining involves dissolving the anode, dropping out the impurities to solution or sludge, and re-plating the metal being refined on the cathode (nominally free of impurities). Am I being too picky? BSMet94 07:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at aal, not at aal. It would have been chust sublime if you could have edited it earlier: the question was asked here so I've tried to find a source and edited accordingly: hopefully some expert can sort any egregious errors I've added. ... dave souza, talk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... if that is so, why does an external peer comment that electro-refining being redirected to electro winning is a grevious error? See here for what Shoutwire found.Okay. This is getting interesting :) (Jabber page) 09:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in dates

There is an inconsistency here: Says it was invented in 1847, and then follows with "later... in 1807". 1807 looks correct for Humphry Davy, so it must have been invented earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.101.55.149 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The dates in the section on the history of electrowinning are all wrong......

Applications

In the applications section, the article says, "Electrorefining could separate heavy metals such as plutonium, cesium, and strontium from the less-toxic bulk of uranium." The electrochemical process used in the Integral Fast Reactor is supposed to separate the fissile and fertile isotopes of the actinides, such as uranium and plutonium, from the fission waste products such as caesium and strontium. Different processes, or is one article incorrect?
—wwoods 22:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]