Boron 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 July 21, 2009 Good article nominee Listed March 16, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept December 26, 2024 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

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

Elements Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Dietary Supplements Mid‑importance Boron is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 730 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

give me a Bohr model boron

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited text throughout the article, including entire sections. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments: The article looks pretty good to me. Some semi-random suggestions, including some snark.

• One fundamental question that seems not to be confronted for element articles is scope. Should "use" section catalogue the major uses of any compound of the element, or should it catalogue the uses of the element per se. If the latter, there are few apps to be listed for B because the element is not widely used.
• "recent" is used a few times. That word does not work in an encyclopedia.
• "has also been successfully used" -> "has also been used"
• Why show an image of Sassolite? It seems to be a rare mineral (WP:UNDUE). The image gives the false impression that borates are colored.
• Wikipedia editors, especially those less familiar with inorganic chemistry, seem to have a fixation on the possible roles of their element in human biology (see chromium, fluorine, silicon, bromine, boron, and some others). To me, these claims are usually supported by weak refs. Then we get fed this hyperbolic cub-scouting "On 5 September 2017, scientists reported that the Curiosity rover detected boron, an essential ingredient for life on Earth, on the planet Mars." Wow, "scientists" did that, really? What else do scientists do?
• Insufficient mention of sodium borohydride. From Kirk-Othmer's encyclopedia: "Sodium tetrahydroborate ... the most widely used boron hydride... Manufacturer ... Morton International Specialty Chemicals Group ... three plants, Oy Nokia Ab, Farbenfabrik Bayer A.G. ... Chemetall Gmbh..." That is six production facilities. It is used in bleaching pulp, I think.
• BNCT was listed as an app. I moved it. That theme has been pounded on for 50+ years and all sorts of boron researchers pray that it will allow them to justify their projects. But BNCT is not used, to best of my knowledge.
• MgB2 is mentioned a couple of times. Kinda speciallized, consolidate?
• mention of 20 Mule Team Borax: parochial US content?
• "Boron carbide is a ceramic material which is obtained by decomposing B2O3 with carbon in an electric furnace" You mean carbothermic? Decomposition is a vague term for a chemical reaction.
• "Boron is rare in the Universe and solar system due to trace formation in the Big Bang and in stars." seems like cyclic argument... it is rare because it is rare.

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a citation to boric acid as a domestic insecticide HyperlinkJumper (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please either provide the exact citiation and where you would like it to go, or wait until you have made enough edits to edit semi-protected pages yourself. PianoDan (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: 4th paragraph: ... a poor electrical conductor at room temperature (1.5 × 10−6 Ω−1 cm−1 room temperature electrical conductivity).[16]

My thinking is CHANGE "cm-1" TO "m-1 siemens per metre" (m to the power of -1)

The exact formula is copied from reference [16] "1.5 × 10−6 Ω−1 cm−1 room temperature electrical conductivity". (which I believe might be a typo error?)

All of this depends on the "electrical resistivity of Boron" (not referenced) which is evidently inexact and and very difficult to quantify. If this is the case it should be so noted.

On the Boron page, the 'characteristics pane'"Other properties", Electrical resistivity is listed as (no reference): ~10(exp)6 Ω⋅m (at 20 °C) ... (NOTE: "m", not "cm") the reciprocal of which is a factor of ~100 different from the problematic equation ... and the SI unit of measurement of conductivity is "siemens per metre" (S/m), and conductivity is the reciprocal of resistance. ~2026-12934 (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last words of post should be: reciprocal of resistivity. ~2026-12934 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference that questions ref [16] but supports the Boron characteristics pane: Other properties > Electrical resistivity: ~10^6 Ω⋅m

https://material-properties.org/electrical-resistivity-of-chemical-elements/

Boron: resistivity: 1 x 10^15 nano ohm meter

= 1 x 10^15 x 10^-9 ohm meter

= 1 x 10^6 ohm meter !!

.

Regarding ref [16], based on the above:

S = siemens

conductivity: 1 / (1 x 10^6 ohm meter)

= 1 x 10^-6 / (ohm meter)

= 1 x 10^-6 S/m = 1 μS/m = .01 μS/cm

This conductivity is approx 1/100 of ref [16] (1.5 μS/cm)

.

Another Very Different resistivity value is in:

. . https://www.webelements.com/boron/physics.html

I'm neither a chemist nor a mathematician - somebody else needs to continue with this. I do not have access (nor motivation) to check the validity of ref [16]. ~2026-12934 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an error in the CHANGE - TO in the initial post. Here is the correction IF ref [16] is in error:

CHANGE: (where "^" means superscript the following value)

"1.5 × 10^−6 Ω^−1 cm^−1 room temperature electrical conductivity"

TO:

"1.5 × 10^−6  siemens per meter room temperature electrical conductivity" ~2026-12934 (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]