Wikipedia:Peer review/Californium/archive1

Californium
This peer review discussion has been closed. I plan to submit this to FAC, but first wanted to see if anybody had some ideas for improvement. The article is already A-class but that does not mean it is ready for FAC copyedit and MOS-wise. Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. Thanks, mav (reviews needed) 05:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RJHall comments&mdash;Overall it looks pretty good. There are a few sentences of the form "...this and this and this and this...", which could be improved. Also there is some unexplained/unlinked jargon in places.
 * I looked for each use of "this" and copyedited those sentences as needed. I'll keep general thought in mind as I ce more. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In "a double-hexagonal close-packed α form" and "a face-centered cubic β form", do the α and β have some significance? Or are they just naming conventions?
 * They are nominative. Clarified. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "orthorhombic, alpha-uranium structure", "atom's 5 f electrons", "3+ actinide elements" seem like jargon and may need clarification.
 * "alpha-uranium structure" is a bit too technical, so removed and sentence generalized. Links made as needed to help explain the rest. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Only californium-249 is suitable for chemical study." Why? Why not californium-251?
 * The source does not say. Commented out until the reason can be found. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. I'll do a de-jargoning copyedit. --mav (reviews needed) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a fair-use image. This might be worth some consideration also. Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I get a a 404 error for that website. --mav (reviews needed) 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems excellent. I don't know enough to comment much on the science, but I know the Manual of Style pretty well. Here are some suggestions:

Physical properties Compounds
 * The dab tool at the top of this review page finds one dab, Dmitrovgrad. It's the one in the "Production" section.
 * fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "At 48 GPa of pressure the β form transitions into" - Would "change" be better than "transition"? "Transition" is a noun, but I'm not sure it should be used as a verb. Ditto for its use in "... the amount of heat required to transition a substance".
 * "Transition" can act as a verb when talking about a change in state, so I linked the second sentence to phase transition. You are correct about the first use, so changed as you suggested. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Link "lattice parameter" to Lattice constant?
 * Done. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Californium(III) oxyfluoride (CfOCl) - Wrong formula. Fluoride, not chloride.
 * Whoops! Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Occurrence
 * "Therefore, concentrations of it in the soil can be 500 times higher than in interstitial water." - Link "interstitial water" to Interstitial fluid?
 * Those two concepts are not related; one refers to hydrology and the other to cellular biology. Interstitial water is much closer in meaning to ground water but the term is more inclusive. Replaced jargon with "in the water surrounding the soil particles". --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "are observed in the spectra of some supernovas.[46][47][9]" - The citations are usually arranged in ascending order; i.e., [9][46][47].
 * 3 cites was overkill anyway, so [9] removed. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Production
 * I see a bit of overlinking. "Curium" does not need to be linked twice in this section; "neutron" probably does not need to be linked again in this section.
 * Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Applications
 * I don't think you need to link "petroleum", "oil well", "gold", or "silver" since they are commonly understood.
 * De-linked. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The problem, then and now, is the exceeding rarity of the element and the need for it to be very fresh and pure for such a use." - Some would see that as a lucky thing rather than a problem. Maybe something like "The exceeding rarity of the element and the need for it to be very fresh and pure inhibits such a use"?
 * It looks like somebody else fixed that. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "if they were continuously exposed to soil" - Can "continuously" be further quantified? For how long, in other words?
 * "continuously" is the word used in the source and no elaboration is given. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a quibble, but I think the direct link in note 3 to an external site should be turned into an inline citation so that the link appears in the "Reference" section rather than in what is really an extension of the main text.
 * I'm not sure it that is technically possible. Hm - the #tag:ref hack seems to work. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * File:CfShield.JPG overlaps two sections. MOS suggests keeping images entirely within the section they illustrate. When faced with this layout problem in my own articles, I try moving images, shrinking them, and sometimes deleting them. However, some images may be too important to delete, so another solution is better.
 * Image above it removed. Now it fits. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair-use rationales get intense scrutiny as an article moves forward. You might beef up "To depict the subject of the article" as the purpose of use for File:Cf bromid.jpg. The problem with that boilerplate explanation is that it is too broad; it might be said of any image.
 * Image removed. One non-free image is enough for the article. --mav (reviews needed) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I'll address each point. --mav (reviews needed) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The German article (which is a FA) is longer and have more sources. Are there any important information there, that are missing from enwiki? 85.11.25.101 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the first things I did was Google translate that article to see what info could be moved. All the interesting bits that could be verified via RSs have been ported over. --mav (reviews needed) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)