Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ununseptium/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 00:47, 9 December 2012.

Ununseptium

 * Nominators: R8R Gtrs, Double sharp 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a small, technical, quite complete article about a very rare chemical element, with 0 atoms on our Earth present as of writing. It explains it all in detail, is a GA and an A-class article. A half of this article requires no knowledge of anything (completely accessible), the second one is as accessible as possible to be useful for those who know the very basic concepts of chemistry (discusses very technical stuff). We'll be happy to address your comments.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the lead, should "second-last element" be "second-to-last element"? Chris857 (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should use multiple image or something like that for the XF3 images. Nergaal (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Image review
 * "The black figures are experimentally obtained while the blue ones are theoretically predicted" - see WP:COLOUR
 * Tried to give the color rather a secondary role in the caption, OK now?
 * Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Island-of-Stability.png should be more specific as to sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is given in the image description, I added it to the caption also, was that what was wanted?
 * That's fine, but where is the source in the image description? All I see there is "This image was created, based on freely available data and images found on the web", which is rather vague. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was looking at the wrong picture! Gimme some time for that one, I'll find sources/replacement--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Got a replacement. Not vectorized, but it's not a requirement (right?). Anyway, the vectorization will come anyway, but in a month maybe.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comment - reading through now... ..Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * link or explain "quantum-tunneling model"

Overall, a good job of making the subject matter as accessible to general readers as possible. The prose is quite engaging. I'm just going to read through it again as it is quite technical.....but looking on target....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – what is an "SO interaction"? This either needs a link, or (preferably) needs to be defined in the text somewhere. Once this is fixed, I will support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We already do have a link: "However, notable differences are likely to arise; a largely contributing effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction." I don't want to explain this one because this one's quite technical. I can't explain that well, to make an average Joe understand what it is and why it's related, in one or two sentences (the relation of this whole thing is kinda complicated if you want to give it a try). It's essentially the same reason why I don't explain what "quantum tunneling" is, and simply give a link. This would make this text even more technical and move the accent from ununseptium itself to theory related to SHE in general, which is not desired.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was wrong, though. I've done some thinking, simply giving a definition may be a way out. I didn't rule out originally we don't have to explain how it works (which would be educationary, but long and offtopic), just saying what it is is okay. Come see if you like it!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – do you know if there are any proposed names for the element yet? If so, these should be included. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked that as well. When asked, what the element 117 would be named (this was the newest article which had mentioned that ropic; it was written in 2011, the article was about that they were going to try the experiment over, they succeeded, as we know today), a Dubna authority said it was kind of bad karma to discuss that in advance. He said that everyone was thinking about their own name, but none ever discussed that aloud, even those from one team. Haven't seen any newer quotes from anyone involved.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – Great read; no noticeable problems. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Jim interesting article. A few tiny nitpicks before I support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the world's only producer of berkelium, refused to provide any—not sure about "refused" reads as if they had some, but wouldn't give, whereas I get the impression that they just didn't have any
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * titanium—link
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Check that every use of "however" is justified
 * decay radioactively, atomic numbers, island of stability,  half-life, magic number, halogen (several times), pi bond, VSEPR theory, AtH—multiple links  in main text (ie, excluding links in the lead and captions), please check
 * IMO, it's better to link atomic number not only from when the term is spelt out, but also when referred to by its symbol Z (which appears before the term is actually spelt out in full). Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say, I never liked this symbol unless it's really useful (graphs, science papers, etc.), which is not the case (we can explain without it, have enough room, and are not sure all our readers understand it (I think, it's better not to tell the reader go away and read the linked article's lead before he can get back to our article when possible)). Can we have it removed?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * periodic table,—overlinked in lead section
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * link "spinor" at first occurrence
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  eV—I don't think this is an SI unit, I assume its use is still acceptable?
 * Yes, it's not an SI unit (see electronvolt), but is used very widely in nuclear physics. Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All looks good, changed to support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment
 * " is the second-heaviest of all the elements that have been created so far" -> ... created since the beginning of the universe? Maybe "synthesised by man" would be better.
 * Said simply "reportedly." I haven't even heard that someone claims to be able to prove such a heavy element has actually been (ever without the man) created, even though many already hypothesize so, and some even hope to find some superheavy elements down here, on our Earth (not only science deviants, but also some decent labs, like those in Dubna and Darmstadt). Thanks for pointing, however, this one's good!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose until an independent copyedit by someone not a chemist or scientist is done. There are prose issues everywhere I look, these are samples only:
 * 1) Ununseptium is the temporary name  ... the use of "temporary" here requires an "as of" date, suggesting re-casting the sentence to avoid teh need. The lead should not leave the reader wanting, and the reader is given no idea why this is "temporary".
 * 2) * Temporary until the JWP agrees that this element has been synthesized. We talk about this in detail in the "Naming" section. If we put everything in the lead, it would become rather unwieldy, especially since all the names for the unconfirmed elements (113, 115, 117, 118) are temporary. I added a link to systematic element name, which gives more information. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) ... is the second-heaviest of all the elements that have been reportedly created so far  ... average reader has no idea why the "reportedly" is there. (I'm not a chemist; the lead has to be directed to a general audience.)  Nor why the word "created" is used.
 * 4) * Last sentence in first paragraph of lead: "However, the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP), which is in charge of examining claims of discovery of superheavy elements, has made no comment yet on whether the element can be recognized as discovered." So it is not officially recognized and has only been reportedly created (although there's currently not much room for doubt). Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) ... making it the most recently discovered element. Is it not possible to recast this sentence to avoid "recently", see WP:MOSDATE, so the sentence won't become outdated.  The 2010 is already there, so it should be possible to rephrase here.
 * 6) * It's not like new elements get discovered every month – the time between the discovery of 117 and the previous element is about six to seven years. It is quite significant for being the latest addition to the periodic table (as it completes the table up to the 7th period), and has been remarked on by some authorities (e.g. Scerri) for that. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Another experiment in 2011 created one of its daughter isotopes using a different method, ... why "another"?  Seems redundant, but I can't tell to what it refers.  Why "different"-- different than what?
 * 8) * Because this is a different experiment from the other one that was mentioned first. For the second point, the first experiment created the daughter isotope in question (289115) indirectly, from decay, but the second one created it directly (and I've added this to the article, further down in the "Discovery" section). Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) ... the original experiment was repeated successfully in 2012 ... what original experiment?  No original experiment is mentioned at this point.  If it has been, why isn't this clause tacked on there instead of here?
 * 10) * Explained. We put the clause there because the last paragraph of this section is discussing the confirmation of different parts of the experiment and how the discovery is getting closer to being officially accepted. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) The IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP), however, has made no comment yet on whether or not the element can be recognized as discovered.  Why "however"?  The most overused word on Wikipedia-- I can see no reason for it in this sentence (nor do I understand why we have scores of FAs with the same problem, but that is for another discussion.)  Why "whether or not"?  This is not good prose.  What is wrong with something like  ... the JWP has not commented on whether the element ...
 * 12) * Removed "or not". However, we use "however" here because, despite the fact that the experiment has been repeated and the results confirmed (which we mentioned in the previous sentence), the JWP has made no comment on whether the discovery can be recognized. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Allright, so in edit mode, we find a whole huge comment attached here ... In the periodic table, ununseptium is located in group 17, --IN CASE YOU WANT TO FIX THIS STATEMENT, DO NOT. The term "group 17" refers to the group, or vertical column, in the periodic table that starts with fluorine. It is distinct from the term "halogen", which refers exclusively to the elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine. We also describe that below, give it a read. ... NO, the lead should stand alone, and if you have to give that much explanation even to editors who know the topic, there's a problem ... we shouldn't have to give something a read to sort it out.  The lead must stand alone and be comprehensible to lower-level readers than professional chemists ...
 * 14) * Changed into a note. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I stopped there. If the lead has prose and jargon issues (and I note that Periodic table was the same), I wonder about the rest of the article. You need a non-chemist to go through this thoroughly and copyedit for prose, grammar, clarity and jargon. Once you locate that copyeditor, perhaps they will also go through Periodic table. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought the lead was supposed to summarize the body of the article, and not contain pretty much everything the body already contained? We explain a lot of the concepts in the lead you've highlighted in the "Discovery" and "Naming" sections. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mind if I have a word as well? Your comments are good, but not always actionable, which is quite a problem. You found problems in the lead section, and am I right to assume that those seven are the only things you don't like about it? You're so right to say that the lead is a smaller edition of the article, and we will do our best to fix it. But there's sometimes little to do. "Should be possible to rephrase"-- well, I have no idea how to. Honestly, I gave it a few tries. But this is a peace of info that doesn't outdated for quite some time, with a lot of people watching for it, with a well-known critic marking it. If you don't like it, just suggest how we can change it. I have no idea. "Created" is used because of a nuance discussed up this page (see reply to the previous reviewer). It's just not worth talking about it. The other ones seem to be addressed. Tell us if not, but please point directly if possible.
 * About your independent check request. First, what can we do to help it in the meanwhile? You pointed out a few lead points. Not a single main body one. If we had some, we would be able to help it somehow, since (I hope) the point is not that the correction should be made by someone else, it's just should be done? Second, note that there are points we simply mention just to help the professionals that are not worth being explained to the general reader. It's like if I were reading an arts FA (an FA on a very specific arts minor question). I don't know what's the difference between rococo and barocco. If I was explained everything, I realize that those who this article is aimed to would be too tired of everything of this stuff around. And I wouldn't be able to repeat the read info in a day. Explaining everything wouldn't be good by no means. Just the important points necessary for the understanding of the basis. It would me more helpful to both experts and beginners. Also, just FYI: neither of us is a professional chemist either.
 * I respect you and your comments, please just be a little more specific and try to provide some possible solutions. Because if you don't know what to do, probably neither do we. (Promise to give it a try, though.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a professional chemist either, and, like R8R, I don't exactly see what could be done to address your comments to the lead section without making it either excessively wordy or insanely long. I know Double sharp posted a request to the GOCE, but in the meantime, we either have to wait, or you will have to be more specific about what to do, because (I think I am safe in saying this) none of us at WP:ELEM that have participated in this FAC see the problems you are alluding too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider most of the above addressed; putting explanations here does not solve the issues for our readers. The lead should not leave them wondering, should not present items out of order, should not require them to fully read the rest of the article. Also, these were only samples: the article needs an independent copyedit for clarity, jargon, and grammar. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how items are presented out of order. (Now "temporary" is explained in the lead, BTW.) Also, I'm not putting explanations here to address your points; I'm putting them here because I think the lead is OK and doesn't need to be changed at those points, and am trying to explain why I think that way. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Asked for a non-chemist copyeditor at the GOCE. Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.webelements.com/nexus/ a high quality reliable source?
 * Changed to another source which gives the same info. Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the other source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A press release from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes http://nauka.in.ua/en/ (Ukrainian Science Club) a high quality reliable source?
 * Changed to another source which gives the same info (a press release from the United States Department of Energy and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – thanks R8R!). Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sasata (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Reference formatting needs some work: I stopped here. Please audit the rest similarly.
 * page range for Haire 2006?
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * retrieval date for #2 (RCS)?
 * Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the use of et al. is inconsistent: compare #3, which lists only one author, with #33, which lists eight authors
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * author format is inconsistent: compare #5 "G. Audi, A. H. Wapstra" and #10 "Lauren Schenkman" with most of the others
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ref #5 is missing an issue#. Also, this is a huge document with 125 pages, so please provide page numbers to help readers verify the cited information
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * retrieval dates are not required for documents in print form (e.g. #6)
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ref#8 is inaccessible to me, perhaps a template is needed?
 * Done Used, as you don't actually need to pay to get access; you just need to register for free access. Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * issue & pages missing for ref #9 (Yu 2010)
 * Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * volume, issue, pages missing for #14 (Barber et al. 2011)
 * Done StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * why is the journal title abbreviated in #17 but not the others?
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * why does #18 not give the full page range?
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose in this article does not qualify under criterion 1a "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". There's too many basic grammatical and spelling errors for a FAC candidate, and the prose sounds like it's written by a non-native English speaker. Here's are some sample issues I found from just the lead and first section. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSLINK says "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link"; the lead sentence has 3 consecutive links
 * "Once it is, it may receive a permanent name which will be suggested for the element by the discoverers" this prose is awkward
 * "is a temporary systematic element name which is intended" which->that
 * "However, it is commonly called "element 117" by researchers and in the literature instead." instead of what?
 * "In the periodic table, ununseptium is located in group 17,[a] all previous members of which are halogens. However, the element is likely to have significantly different properties from the halogens, which form the rest of the group" the last part is redundant, as the previous sentence has already told us that all other group 17 members are halogens
 * melting point, boiling point, and ionization energy should be linked
 * "While lighter ununseptium isotopes are agreed in the literature to be very unstable' awkward
 * there's text sandwiching between image and infobox in the History section
 * "In 2004 the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia developed a project for the discovery of element 117" the source says "Russia had proposed this experiment in 2004", which is not the same as what's claimed in the article.
 * "…Russia developed a project for the discovery of element 117" I don't think "discovery" is the right verb to use here, as they already knew what they were looking for
 * "calcium beam: The isotope of calcium used in the beam" why is "The" capitalized?
 * I was under the impression that if the second part, which explains what has been said in the first one, consists itself of several sentences, it should be capitalized, in AmE at least. The current punctuation of the sentence is a little too complicated (both a colon and a semicolon are together too much). I'm not sure what would be the best to do about that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading Colon (punctuation), it seems that you are correct, this usage is considered acceptable by some style guides in Am. English. I also agree that the punctuation is unnecessarily complex for the sentence :) Sasata (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The production resulted in a fair amount of berkelium" a fair amount?
 * "The target of the resulting material had to be carried out to Russia quickly" what target? Carried out to Russia?
 * "The teams had to deal out with the bureaucratic barrier between the two countries" deal out?
 * "Even though it traveled five times through the Atlantic ocean" it traveled through the ocean?
 * "no basis for an JWP discovery claim" an->a
 * "when JWP was reviewing claims on discoveries" on->of
 * what's a trans-copernicium element?
 * Done Double sharp (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mind giving us a few more tips for improvement? I'm now trying to audit the rest of the article similarly, hope I'll make it any better (make some corrections to the fact I am the one to have written most of it, as well as my bad English, there's a lot of room for improvement if the rest of the text is also bad, but I haven't noticed that). Whatever it is, thank you a lot for your comments! I want to make it really decent, thanks for being understandable.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to help. Ping me after you find a copyeditor to go through it (no need for us to be stepping on each other's toes) and I'll nitpick it to the best of my ability. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Sasata will do the honors (competent nitpicking), I'm going to unwatch for now and will re-visit when others are satisfied. Please ping me ???  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- I've kept an eye on this nom, without comment, for some time and I believe that further improvement should take place away from FAC. This has been open more than a month and, while there was early support, there's clearly no consensus to promote at this time and with an independent copyedit, plus additional work volunteered by Sasata, yet to come, I see no prospect of such consensus being achieved in the short term. Please pursue the copyedit and Sasata's additions, and then consider re-nominating (a minimum of two weeks having passed following archiving of this nom). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.