Talk:Rutherfordium/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Improved experimental techniques allowed to characterize some chemical properties of rutherfordium, ... This doesn't make sense, poor grammar.
 * that increased the probability of these products to survive fission. Poor grammar.
 * they only require the emission of only one or two neutrons. redundant "only"
 * Some of isotopes with an atomic mass up to 263 "Some of"?
 * a few alpha decay events were observed since 2004 that terminated Poor phrasing.
 * Some experimental evidence has been obtained in 2004 for an even heavier isotope Better to use "was", consistency in tense.
 * However, the last step in this chain is not determined for sure. Colloquial, not encyclopaedic.
 *  It is unclear weather these events were due to direct spontaneous fission of 268Db, or instead, it produced electron capture events with a similar long half-times Very poor.
 * OK, take this away and get it copy-edited by someone with a command of good plain English.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Whereas most of the isotopes of rutherfordium can be synthesized directly this way, some of the heavier ones have only been observed as decay products of elements with higher atomic numbers I think this statement needs citing.
 * Sources appear reliable.
 * However the article needs to explain who made various observations, rather than just relying on cites.
 * 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:
 * OK, the prose is nowhere near "reasonably well-written". Please get it copy-edited and then take to peer review before renominating. Fail GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wohoo! Long live GAs with only 5kb of text! They are so easy to write, because they don't really have anything in them. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, the prose is nowhere near "reasonably well-written". Please get it copy-edited and then take to peer review before renominating. Fail GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wohoo! Long live GAs with only 5kb of text! They are so easy to write, because they don't really have anything in them. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wohoo! Long live GAs with only 5kb of text! They are so easy to write, because they don't really have anything in them. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)