Talk:Tennessine/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 17:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this one a look later tonight. In the meantime, I do notice that reference #3 is dead. Canadian  Paul  17:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I simply removed the ref – the statement was cited by another, more reliable ref anyway. Double sharp (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * 1) Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce material that is not present in the body of the article. The fact that it is "is the second heaviest element of all created" is currently not in the article.
 * 2) *✅ Kept in the lead, also placed in the "Nuclear stability and isotopes" section. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) There's a deletion discussion going on for File:DecayChain Ununseptium.svg, which needs to be resolved prior to this article passing for GA status (unless the image is removed from the article of course)
 * 4) *✅ Original image deleted. Current one is a redraw (thanks Materialscientist!) of that image and is thus OK to use (as the data in that image is free and only the image itself wasn't). Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Under "Pre-discovery", first paragraph, "The difference of 8 between the two kinds of nucleons is extremely rare for stable and near-stable atoms, with the next one being zinc-68" What do you mean by "the next one"? This could use some clarification.
 * 6) *✅ Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Please rectify all citation-needed tags (there's one in the first paragraph of "Pre-discovery")
 * 8) *✅ Cited. Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Under "Discovery", second paragraph, "289Uup, one of ununseptium's daughters, was created in a different way in 2011, however, yet it matched the claimed properties during the discovery." I find this sentence to be a bit confusing... what claimed properties is it matching? (Maybe just explain it here and I can figure out if it's me or the article that is confused)
 * 10) *✅ Decay properties – I've made it clearer. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Under "Nucleus stability and isotopes", first paragraph, "While the first 40 elements may turn out to be perfectly stable, 40 more can decay, but still have at least one isotope not shown to decay, and another four certainly decay, yet are primordial (i.e., present on the Earth since its formation), the stability of nuclei decreases with the increase in atomic number greatly thereafter, so that all isotopes with an atomic number above 101 decay radioactively with a half-life under a day, with an exception of 268Db." This sentence is way too long and confusing. It needs to be split up into at least two.
 * 12) *✅ Cut the first part of the sentence. It wasn't really that relevant and was confusing. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Under "Predicted atomic, physical, and chemical properties", first paragraph, "Certain chemical properties, however, are predicted to differ from what one would expect based on periodic trends from the lighter halogens because of relativistic effects" requires a citation as this is material that could be challenged.
 * 14) *❌ Doesn't need a citation – the paragraphs below give (cited) examples. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Same section, second paragraph, "In its free form the element is thought to form dimeric molecules, just like the other halogens." Since the average reader isn't going to know what "dimeric molecules" are, there should be either an explanation or some appropriate wikilinking here.
 * 16) *✅ Linked to diatomic molecule. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article did need a major copyedit, which I performed, but I'll have to look over it again once the issues above have been dealt with. To allow for these issues to be addressed I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  23:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * THe article needs to cover this. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added it. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed of course; was going to give that a check after the rest had been dealt with, but thanks for taking care of it! As for the nominator, just let me know when you want me to take another look. Canadian   Paul  14:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Under "Discovery", I'd be interested in knowing what the "different way" of creating the daughter was, as well as why they chose not to submit a claim to to IUPAC, but of course I can't ask you to include information that's not available in reliable sources. If it is out there, however, that might be a useful addition. Also I noticed that you write "second heaviest" but "second-lightest" - the use (or absence) of the dash in these cases should be standardized in the prose. In any case, I now believe that the article meets the Good Article criteria and thus I will be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for all your work! Canadian  Paul  19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Actually, R8R Gtrs did most of the work, but stopped when the article seemed very close to GA to me, so I just fixed the remaining issues and asked for a GA review.
 * About your remaining points: changed to "second-heaviest" throughout. Any remaining instances of the unhyphenated version can safely be regarded as having been overlooked by me and can be changed. ;-)
 * Finally, you need confirmation to have a reasonable chance of getting the discovery officially acknowledged at IUPAC, which they didn't have until this year. See this paper by IUPAC for IUPAC's discovery criteria. I'll try to find the synthesis method for the daughter (Uup-289) and add it. Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the synthesis method for Uup-289, but did not include it because it would clutter the article (the equations take up a lot of space, and the inline equivalents are hard to understand without explanation). The method was Am-243 + Ca-48 → Uup-289 + 2 n, and is on the ununpentium article already. Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)