Talk:Livermorium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 14:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this; I'll add comments below as I go through the article. -- That's everything I can see on a first pass. I'll place this on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "the synthesis of superheavy atoms, including ununoctium": should be "including livermorium", presumably?
 * Both are important, I think. E118 would be produced first and would decay to Lv. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "the synthesized flerovium isotope was actually 289Lv": should be "289Fl".
 * Yup, overenthusiastic copy-paste corrections. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "between April–May 2001": between doesn't work with a dash like that; maybe "between April and May 2001" or "during".
 * Changed to "during". Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had to read the first paragraph of "Road to confirmation" several times. I began trying to rewrite it but I couldn't be certain of a couple of points.  Does "This flerovium isotope has not been observed again in a repeat of the same reaction" mean that that particular decay chain hasn't been observed, or that no decay chain thought to indicate that isotope has been observed?  And "later it was found that 289Fl did not have these decay properties": does that mean that that decay chain was found not to occur for 289Fl when that isotope was successfully detected?  "However, its detection in this series of experiments": "it" means the decay chain, not the isotope, correct? And "in which the first alpha particle was not detected": what does "first" refer to?  Is there any reason not to give the whole decay chain in this article?
 * I'm not too sure how to phrase this: it's a confusing situation and the language I used seems to be even more confusing! I tried to rewrite this. About the decay chain, I thought about it, but decided against it because the only important isotopes in it for this discussion are the parent 293Lv and its immediate daughter 289Fl. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better. I still don't understand one sentence: "This second possibility is rendered more plausible by the fact that the alpha decay of 293Lv was missed" -- can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to clear it up even more. Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the next paragraph mean that the Joint Working Party acknowledged copernicium-283 but not livermorium-291, from which it was derived? Or were there other pathways for the creation of copernicium-283, so that the livermorium pathway was not critical to the recognition?  Later in the paragraph you say that the data from the earlier experiments was found inconclusive -- was this for the same pathway that created copernicium-283?
 * There were other pathways to make 283Cn, some only involving Cn, some also involving Fl, and some with Lv as well. But all the data agreed on 283Cn. IUPAC's usage of the Fl- and Lv-including data to support this conclusion however implied that 291Lv was created. The earlier experiments were for different Lv isotopes, not creating 283Cn. I've tried to explain this in the article. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, livermorium is sometimes called eka-polonium": why italics for eka-polonium?
 * Should have been in quotes: oops! Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You have "Joint Working Group" and "Joint Working Party"; are these different?
 * Apparently not. Normalized to the latter, which IUPAC uses. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Livermorium is expected to be in the middle of an island of stability centered around copernicium (element 112) and flerovium (element 114): the reasons for the presence of this island are however still not well understood." A couple of things here.  Surely if the island is centred around 112 and 114, 116 won't be in the middle?  If I'm reading the graphic right, the 116 line doesn't intersect the white circle at all.  And why "however"?  I also think a colon is the wrong punctuation; I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences.
 * Changed to "near". And split into two sentences. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better; can we get rid of the "however", though? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the meaning of the blue arrow, red and white circle, and the note "No way!" on the diagram?
 * This graphic was hastily taken from a .ppt presentation by an expert in the field as a replacement for a horribly inaccurate one that we used to use. Unfortunately I couldn't remove the arrows, circles, and notes. The white circle is the island of stability. The rest aren't relevant to this article (would be better on unbinilium), but for what it's worth: the blue arrow points to where the next superheavy element isotopes expected to be synthesized would be on the chart. The red circle is just a stylized prohibitory traffic sign, to indicate that this path is blocked because the half-lives beyond E120 get too low to allow detection using current technology. The note says the same thing. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing those unnecessary markings! I've now replaced the image with your improved version. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph that discusses cold and hot fusion needs some reorganization. Currently it uses the terms, then defines them, and in fact the definition of cold fusion is given before it's clear that that's what's being defined.  In addition the discussion of neutron-rich nuclei makes it appear that actinides are not used in cold fusion; if that's the case, then I don't think there is a definition of cold fusion -- I assumed it was simpler lower energy versions of hot fusion, but perhaps not.
 * Cold fusion usually uses lead and bismuth targets and fuses them with first-row transition metals. Hot fusion usually uses actinide targets and lighter projectiles (up to calcium). Changed it so that the article now defines the terms before actually using them, and added further explanation of cold fusion. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is much improved. One more suggestion: move the last sentence (making it clear that this is not the same as cold fusion) to a note, and put the note at the point where you first use the phrase "cold fusion". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Better? Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "can be accomplished": should we say "can" if this is only theoretical?
 * Changed to "could". Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest linking "magic" to "magic number (physics)".
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "These effects cause livermorium's chemistry to be somewhat different from that of its lighter congeners": this is almost identical to a phrase used earlier in the same paragraph. I'd cut the earlier one and start the discussion of causes of differences in chemistry with a simpler phrase, such as "Some differences are caused by" or something along those lines.  Then the final sentence can stay untouched.
 * Is what I did OK? Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a fair amount of overlap between the last part of the first paragraph in the "Physical and atomic" section, and the first part of the next paragraph -- discussion of inert pairs, and the notation 7s$2$7p$2 1/2$7p$2 3/2$ for example.
 * Is what I did OK? Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "expected to be volatile enough as pure elements for them to be chemically investigated": what is meant by volatile here? Reactive?
 * No, it has a specialized meaning in chemistry (it means that it vaporizes easily). Linked, and also gave a short parenthetic definition. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew that meaning but thought it unlikely since Lv is expected to be a solid; but that's fine. I think the link is enough; I'd cut the parenthesis.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, cut the parentheses. (Incidentally I didn't expect it to be taken as unlikely, given that its lighter congener polonium is also a very volatile solid at room temperature: I now mention this in the article.) Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of time for tonight; I should be able to return to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to continue this review tonight, but I did manage to clean up the image: see File:Island_of_Stablity_derived_from_Sagrebaev.png. Let me know if the area previously obscured by the graphics needs more grey squares. Is this usable in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this looks great! Replaced image. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK -- I've asked for it to be moved on Commons as I made a mistake in the file name. Struck a couple more items above; just one or two points left now.  I will see what sources I have access to later today and do a couple of spot checks if I can.  Sorry about the delay getting back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at a few sources and couldn't find anything that I have access to, so I'll take it on faith. I'm passing this for GA; congratulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just realized I never tested for dead links. Run the link detector at the top of this page and you'll see some dead/inactive links; can you fix those?  Once that's done I'll pass this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That tool lists several, but some of the links it lists seem to be working all right. I've fixed the ones that don't. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)