Talk:Strontium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I t burns in air to produce.. - not clear what "It" refers to given previous sentence
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  Besides the simple oxide SrO, the peroxide SrO2 and yellow superoxide Sr(O2)2 are also known - "are known" seems a bit perfunctory - would help if some brief notes on rarity/how made added for the two extra compounds
 * Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Any info on the superoxide? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that I could find. The one source I found that mentions it could only detect it through ESR spectroscopy. Since KO2 is already a potent explosive, and Sr2+ is smaller and more highly charged than K+, I think I can see why this is the case. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't get any feel for what Organostrontium compounds actually are or why they are notable.
 * Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated about 30,000 km2 with greater than 10 kBq/m2 with 90Sr. _ I'd a dd a footnote trying to relate this number to upper limit of safe exposure
 * This may be a problem. First of all, the units don't match: for radiation doses, you want the sievert, not the becquerel. Secondly, even if you were to try to calculate from this, it may not be a reasonable assumption to make that the 90Sr is uniformly distributed: for instance SrCl2 is soluble and will hence be mobile, but SrCO3 will not be so. Perhaps a better comparison would be that it makes up 5% of all the 90Sr we have released into the environment? Double sharp (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, just something to give it some context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Updated figures in production would be good.
 * Updated to 2014. Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Applications section, I'd move material on the decline of CRT to sentence 2 in opening para as it's pretty precipitous and notable.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Its uncontrolled presence in bones can cause.. - "uncontrolled" is possibly redundant?
 * Removed. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Would be good to provide a link or exact source location for File:World Strontium Production 2014.svg
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please format all reference dates the same way.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)