Talk:Unbiquadium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wikiman2718 (talk · contribs) 18:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This article looks great, and I'd love to review it. If all goes well, I'll review your article on Unbihexium after I'm done. Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this up. ComplexRational (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Intro is quite well written, but should cite sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a specific statement that you feel is questionable and is not already cited in the main body of the article, per MOS:LEADCITE, I don't think additional citations are necessary here. ComplexRational (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The section on nuclear stability and isotopes needs some cleaning up with focus on concision and prose. It can be hard to read at times. The information should relate directly to unbiqadium whenever possible, and not just discuss the island of stability in general. Consider starting out with a sentence like "unbihexium is predicted to have a long half-life," or something along those lines.
 * For starters, it isn't really possible to use such an opening sentence because there are many different predictions from different sources, ranging from nanoseconds to billions of years. A neutral sentence explaining this may be doable, however.
 * I'll look more into the overall structure over the next few days. The current structure was intended to provide context for the island of stability and then explain specifics for unbiquadium, though I might be able to trim the background to 1 or 2 sentences. ComplexRational (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no need for words like "so-called" and "what is known as". Just use the terms. Additionally, please be sure to state that this information is theoretical. Phrases like "there is a slight increase in nuclear stability around atomic numbers 110–114, which leads to the appearance of what is known in nuclear physics as the "island of stability" imply scientific certainty and should be properly qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed what I could find, and made a distinction between known properties and (theoretical) predictions. ComplexRational (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to keep copy editing as time allows. All of the information seems to be here, but we'll have to present it more clearly to achieve good article status. I think it's just a matter of putting the work in at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide specific suggestions for copyedits (unless they are obvious spelling errors) and clarity on this review page? See also User talk:Double sharp/Unbiquadium, where extensive corrections along similar lines were proposed and made to promote a draft to article status. ComplexRational (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only major problems that I see are in the "nuclear stability and isotopes" section. While it is ok to include background information, an entire paragraph that fails to mention unbiquadium directly is too far off course. The article needs to focus specifically on Unbiquadium. Additionally, the section should read more like a discussion of possible properties than a list of facts. It may need phrases like "while some models predict" and "other researchers propose" to make it clear that these predictions are basically hypothesis. This is in contrast to unbiquadium's place in the superactinide series, where it belongs by definition. For clarity, we need to draw clear distinctions in the levels of evidence for each of these facts. The copyediting needed in the other sections is minor. Those parts just need some rephrasing for maximal readability (much like the changes I've already made). Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a short trimming of the intro, and mentioned that early predictions specifically targeted elements near unbiquadium and unbihexium. Where exactly do you believe distinctions between fact and theory need to be made? It seems that for the most part, everything is theoretical (but with a factual base) until unbiquadium actually is discovered.
 * BTW, I was not notified by your ping; I found out that you have to use re and sign your post in the same edit to trigger a notification. ComplexRational (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. The facts fall within a hierarchy of evidence. The highest quality evidence is the definitions (e.g. unbihexium is part of the superactinide series by the definition of a superactinide) and confirmed theories (e.g. example, the existence of magic numbers is confirmed). Below that, there are unconfirmed theories (e.g. 184 is a magic number of protons) which are believed, but not proven. It is important to draw a distinction here. Additionally, when a fact is not known with confidence, try to express the entire range of beliefs. For instance, the article might include something along the lines of "Unbihexium is expected to be more stable than existing superheavy elements. Estimations of the half life of its most stable isotopes rage between a few milliseconds and several million years." This is just an example, but I hope you get the idea. If you need help with this part, I'd be glad to lend a hand. I pride myself on my copyediting.Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I tweaked a few sentences to emphasize that they are speculative, though I already feel that all beliefs are addressed equally. How does it look now? ComplexRational (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the changes to the later paragraphs. It now reads as a discussion with many sides weighing in about their beliefs rather than a collection of facts. I'd still like some talk of unbiquadium in the first paragraph. I think that if you start out with a sentence or two explaining that Unbiquadium is of potential interest because it may lie withing the island of stability (and thus have a longer half-life) this will make the following material appear of greater relevance. That paragraph is good, but needs to be related directly to unbiquadium before it starts so that it doesn't look like a tangent to the unobservant reader.
 * ✅ How does it look now? ComplexRational (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This renders the identification of many unbiquadium isotopes nearly impossible (with current technology, or forever?), as detectors cannot distinguish rapid successive signals from alpha decays in a time period shorter than microseconds.Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ With current technology. ComplexRational (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * About mentioning in WP:FIRSTSENTENCE the name of "eka-uranium", bolded as a synonym then. As the article describes in Unbiquadium, that name is likely to be incorrect (accepting that Ubq is in g-block). Shouldn't we remove it from the lede, while keeping the Naming sentence (being an obscure, outdated name)? -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this; we had a similar discussion about unbibium (eka-thorium) and the name ended up staying in the lead. Also, at least as recently as 2006, eka-uranium and eka-plutonium were still in use to refer to these elements, and we are saying that the element is called eka-uranium, not that it is eka-uranium following strict rules. As far as I understand, eka-uranium is a commonly used alternate name; thus, it is complaint with WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. The real question is, even if the name is technically incorrect, does its common use among reputable authors warrant its inclusion in the lead? ComplexRational (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Still does not feel right over here (not even a note, & also in the infobox?). But I'll leave it. -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The following sentence under "synthesis attempts" is a bit awkward. "This is because having complete nuclear shells (or, equivalently, having a magic number of protons or neutrons) would confer more stability on the nuclei of such superheavy elements, thus moving closer to the island of stability." You might fixing it up and moving it to the start of the paragraph so that the motivation comes before the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for keeping you waiting, but I don't think I will have very much time to do extensive work on this until Friday. ComplexRational (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's your article and you can take as much time as you like. Thanks for writing it, by the way. I've always wanted Wikipedia to have good articles on the hypothetical elements. Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ ComplexRational (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The following is in the second paragraph of "nuclear stability and isotopes".
 * In this region of the periodic table, N = 184 and N = 228 have been proposed as closed neutron shells,[28] and various atomic numbers have been proposed as closed proton shells, such as Z = 114, 120, 122, 124, and 126.

Try to make the information as relevant to unbiquadium as possible. I don't think there is a need to discuss numbers other than Z=124 in this particular place. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The text now emphasizes 124, with the rest in a footnote as they still provide context but do deviate from the main focus. ComplexRational (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * re : no, grammar (wiki cannot overrule) says: this is Contraction (grammar). Instead of writing:
 * "Unbiquadium, also known as element 124 and also known as eka-uranium, ...", we can correctly contract to:
 * "Unbiquadium, also known as element 124 and eka-uranium, ...".


 * Using "or" suggests/states/claims thet one must make a choice: only one of these would be correct. While it actually is an and, and list of equally valid synonyms.


 * I propose to use "or". -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * IOW, it says: "synonyms are A and B" (not "synonyms are A or B"). -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the delays. The article is looking great. I don't see any clear problems. I just need to go over it with a fine-tooth comb (eg. check sourcing, final round of ce) before I can approve it. I'm on that ASAP. Thanks for writing this article, by the way. I remember looking up some hypothetical elements on Wikipedia when I first learned about them in grade school and being disappointed that the articles contained almost no information. Information of this sort is quite scarce outside of scientific journals; therefor, you have done a great service to all people who care about science by providing it to the general public. This article is a victory not only for Wikipedia, but for all of us who care about the hypothetical elements. Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)