Talk:Rubidium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nergaal (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: -->
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: -->
 * Pass or Fail: -->

Specific comments:

*"m limits its production to 2 to 4 tonnes per year." - in metallic form? Will do the last two sections a bit later. Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "s the second most electropositive of the non-radioactive alkali elements and melts at a temperature of 39.3 °C (102.7 °F)" - poor sentence; also say that the most elpos is Cs; I think correct is alkali metals not elements
 * repetition of "Like other" - use similarly to, etc
 * "and does not normally occur in living organisms" - link it better to the previous sentence
 * "property could be " - may prove useful
 * first para in compounds is unreferenced
 * radioactive87Rb - spacing
 * "Natural rubidium is radioactive with specific activity of about 670 Bq/g, enough to expose a photographic film in approximately 30 to 60 days" - super interesting but needs citation and mention at what distance
 * how about non-natural isotopes?
 * any idea why is there so much Rb-87?
 * Who is the main producer of the element? (country)
 * the history section is thin outside of the discovery information
 * There are several points in the other sections but than we have it two times mentioned
 * asubchloride - spacing
 * with carbon - was it actually coal?
 * " The distilled rubidium was pyrophoric and the density differed less than 0.1 g/cm3 and the melting point by less than 1 °C from the now established values" - poor prose
 * "0.24 % rubidium oxide" - which one?
 * why both uses and appications?

More: Most of the issues I've listed are easily fixable so I will leave this review open for a few days. Nergaal (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the intro says the metal is soft twice, but the body does not say anything about that
 * the ionization energy (which is very low) should probably be included in the text
 * I suggest moving the first para of application to history since it fits there better if you rename the latter just applications
 * "(that is, producing volumes of magnetized 3He gas, with the nuclear spins aligned toward a particular direction in space, rather than randomly)" should be moved out of the paranthesis
 * " LPRO series from Datum" - wikilink? anyways, without explaining the acronym it is pretty useless to the reader
 * Rubidium-82 is first discussed in the aplications section, althoug stuff like lifetime and possibly the decay pathways shoudl be in teh isotopes section
 * btw, what does Rb-87 decompose to? i.e. decay pathway
 * I think it is already in the isotope section.--Stone (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * wikilink strontium-82 and probably state its lifetime or rate of transformation into Rb-82
 * "this element is kept" change that to metal
 * "almost always has +1 oxidation state when dissolved in water" - two points: when it does not? and the oxidation state discussion should be above, not in the precautions section
 * "The ions are not particularly toxic, a 70 kg" => "The Rb+ ions are not particularly toxic as a "
 * "Rubidium was tested for the influence on manic depression" - should be in the uses section not the precautions one
 * "died after a few weeks" - might be nice to be a little less vague

A few more things: Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the term Rubidium standard should probably be mentioned
 * Rubidium chloride has some nice aplications - maybe borrow some?
 * Borrowed only one the others are very special lab applications
 * RbOH is highly corrosive
 * flame test for Rb should be mentioned
 * any idea what is the typical coordination number for Rb?
 * File:Rubidium-oxide-unit-cell-3D-balls-B.png might be nice to use to show tetrahedral coordination
 * The coordination chemistry turned out to be complex so I would not like to go into detail here.--Stone (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have sufficient time for a few days, but will take a closer look at the article after Monday. Nergaal (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! I have also a lot of other things to do.--Stone (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work! Although a few issues are left, most of them were fixed. Therefore, I am passing this article. Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)