Talk:Actinium/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

G'day, I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go (Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot down queries as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Debierne and described the substance (in 1899) as similar to titanium.. -grammar


 *  The stated history of the discovery of actinium remained questionable for decades - "remained questionable" sounds odd, and the adjective has come to have a connotation of "bad" rather than "uncertain" or "debated". Needs rephrasing.


 * I am curious - the article leaves me wanting to know why the uncertainty of dates. Is there any other information which can be added as to why this has happened?
 * One might expect this light element to be easy to study, but it is one of the least available. Now we can produce it in neutron reactors, but in the 1900s, scientists had to deal with 0.2 mg Ac per tonne of uranium. I guess difficulties in separation from other elements (mentioned in the article) was the main reason for mistrust to some results. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  Its symbol Ac is also used in abbreviations of such chemicals as acetyl, acetate and acetaldehyde, although actinium has nothing to do with these compounds. - subject jumps a little, it is as if we haven't really told teh reader the letters are for the element before launching into other uses...and it needs referencing.
 * Hm, it is in the first line of the article .. feel free to tweak/suggest. I've added some refs. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * oops, missed that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  Owing to its strong radioactivity, actinium glows in the dark with a pale blue light - why? Can this be discussed a bit more?
 * Added a ref and a bit of explanation. This is a general property of all strongly radioactive elements, (and no source articulates this specifically for actinium). They emit energetic particles which excite air (which is mostly nitrogen+oxygen), and the number of excitations per second is so high that we can see blue light due to electronic transitions in air molecules. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirty-six radioisotopes have been characterized - "characterized" seems an odd choice of word, why not "discovered" or "identified"?


 *  The low natural concentration, and the close similarity of physical and chemical properties to those of lanthanum and other lanthanides - this I don't get - if it is found in uranium, why are we comparing it with lanthanum?
 * All uranium ores contain large amounts of lanthanides, and lanthanum is the most abundant of them - this is one of the most basic facts on actinides in the Earth crust. I've added a bit on that. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  however, potential applications are being developed. - and some elaboration?
 * Old weasel. Removed. I am unaware of and do doubt there is much practical development in this area. I accidentally have this link at hand saying "Consequently, the metallurgy of actinium has been little studied and, due to the great expense and trouble involved, probably will not be studied extensively in the future." Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get an impression when reading this of how much of the element can be made at a time - what are standard amounts? what is the biggest amount?
 * The article mentions "milligram amounts", and the sources don't say more. They say the purification stage limits the amounts to milligrams, and usually the exact number is a strong function of desired purity. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * References need standardising, e.g. names in form of "Smith, John" (which would appear to involve least amount of tweaking)
 * The above prose concerns have been addressed by friendly copyeditors :). I've unified the names. Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One might consider using http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/actinium.pdf (cite it as ) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: