Talk:Darmstadtium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 04:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Perhaps "most dense" → "densest", and "element 112"→"copernicium (element 112)", and "in fact" in the paragraph about Ds-277 is probably redundant if a long half-life was not expected.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Still would seem a little murky (about electron configurations (don't use "nd" notation for specific elements); perhaps elaborate on the reasons why we need 1 atom/week for experiments.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The fisrt one is done. The answer to the second is in the next sentence: "...the need to increase the rate of production of darmstadtium isotopes...so that statistically significant results can be obtained." Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If possible, explain why we need that particular rate of production, but if it can't be done so in a reasonably concise fashion, we can settle with this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ This seems to have to do with the cross-sections of the nuclear reactions (see isotopes of darmstadtium), but it doesn't seem to be possible to explain this reasonably concisely. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The reader is likely to remain confused if we refer to it as a requirement for chemistry experiments, which shouldn't be affected by neutron absorption x-sections.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to have a reasonable chance of the reaction actually being successful to get a sufficient number of nuclides you can test chemically. The steps for testing an element's chemistry are (1) synthesizing the nuclide; (2) separating out the nuclide; (3) conducting chemical tests on it; and (4) examining the decay products to be sure you've studied the chemistry of the correct element. Steps (2) and (3) must be done very quickly and shortly after (1), given the short half-lives of these elements, and typically one atom decays long before the next one is synthesized. If atoms can't be made fast enough, there won't be enough atoms made and the results won't be statistically significant (the sample size being too small). However, nothing in this explanation explains anything about why 1 atom/week is the cut-off. Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hhm... should it be removed? --Jasper Deng (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think the figure should be removed: we have a source for it, which references the GSI, so it should be reliable. What we don't have is a justification for that specific figure; we already have general explanations why a reasonable figure is necessary, though, so it should be OK. Double sharp (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Need to cite for the predicted density and for the claim that indirect synthesis is not preferable for chemical experiments.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Minor citation and prose issues.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Minor citation and prose issues.
 * Minor citation and prose issues.