Talk:Meitnerium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 18:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


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

A few minor issues here and there: I think that's probably good to go.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The "nuclear isomerism" section could be written to be more accessible to the general public, which generally knows little to nothing about this concept and "alpha lines".
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Nuclear isomerism and experimental chemistry sections (especially the former) need more citations; there may be those who may hold a different view on the latter section, so it's probably a good idea to cite other sources too.
 * I found a source for 270mMt, but not 268mMt. The experimental chemistry of Mt hasn't received as much attention recently as that of Cn and Fl, though. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw keep it on hold until you do find a source, because it seems to be legitimate information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the "experimental chemistry" section better now? Double sharp (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Expanded the "Experimental chemistry" section with material from other sources, and located references for the "Nuclear isomerism" section (both 270mMt and 268mMt). Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 15 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:
 * I'm not sure if it's due weight to present only a single viewpoint on the possible experiments on the element.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * If these can be fixed, I think it can pass.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * If these can be fixed, I think it can pass.