Talk:Nobelium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parcly Taxel (talk · contribs) 09:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for my gaffe over at TFAR (which was recent when this page was created), but it is a done deal and we should move on. Fine then, element 102, here we go.
 * No problem about the gaffe: all is forgiven. And I mean it. (But do try not to do it again, please?) Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A gaffe with Nobelium? Please explain. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No (LOL), it wasn't about nobelium: it was about his TFA nomination of fluorine. Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * 'Tis a shortie here with nobelium and over at the next element lawrencium. I didn't even need to think.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead Discovery Characteristics -> Physical Yep, that's the end of the problems. Parcly  Taxel  09:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "A total of twelve nobelium isotopes are known to exist; the most stable is 259No with a half-life of 58 minutes; but the shorter-lived 255No (half-life 3.1 minutes) is most commonly used in chemistry because it can be produced on a larger scale." Between the second and third clauses, a comma and not a semicolon.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "In 1969, the Dubna team carried out chemical experiments on element 102 and concluded that it behaved as the heavier homologue of ytterbium. The Russian scientists proposed the name joliotium (Jo) for the new element, creating an element naming controversy that would not be resolved for several decades, which each group using its own proposed names" You forgot the full stop at the end!
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nobelium metal has not yet been prepared in bulk quantities, and therefore cannot be thus prepared using current methods."
 * Actually I meant that current methods cannot prepare bulk No metal. I changed it to "Nobelium metal has not yet been prepared in bulk quantities, and bulk preparation is currently impossible": is that OK? Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. Parcly   Taxel  14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)