Wikipedia:Peer review/Periodic table/archive2

Periodic table
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have been told that it is getting close to FA, and I would like to know what improvements could be made.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, StringTheory11 18:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I had a look through this article and found it to be quite a demanding read, compared to descriptive chemistry. Might partly explain the lack of feedback. Anyway, here are some comments about the lead. I've expressed them as questions and inconsistencies that came to mind as I was going, rather than as suggested changes:
 * Quick comments: File:Atomic number to radius graph.png is hard to read without clocking. Try to change it to lines instead of separate spots. Also, when did the CAS labeling scheme fall into disuse? Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The new IUPAC nomenclature was proposed in 1988. The CAS labelling scheme must have fallen into disuse sometime after that. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Second point is ✅, but for the first point, I don't have an image editing software on my computer (the closest thing I have is Autodesk Maya), and I know next to nothing about that sort of stuff. Is anyone else willing to make the image? StringTheory11 00:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use Microsoft Excel to create a line graph with the data already in the picture or that at atomic radii of the elements (data page) (use the "empirical" set). Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ StringTheory11 00:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 'The periodic table is a tabular display of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their properties.' Which properties?
 * ✅, I think. I hope this is what you meant. StringTheory11 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'The main body of the table is a 18 × 7 grid, with gaps included to keep elements with similar properties together, such as the halogens and the noble gases.' How do the gaps keep the halogens together?
 * ✅, that sentence was even somewhat factually inaccurate; the gaps are there to keep elements with the same number of valence electrons together. Thanks! StringTheory11 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'The periodic table accurately predicts the properties of various elements and the relations between properties.' As I understand it, accurately is an exaggeration; nor does the periodic table predict all the properties and relations between them.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Mendeleev's presentation also predicted some properties of then-unknown elements expected to fill gaps in his arrangement; these predictions were proved correct when those elements were discovered and found to have properties close to the predictions.' Yes, this is so. However, if memory serves, and not to underscore his brilliance, some of his predictions were also found to be incorrect. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ StringTheory11 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments a vast article so some spot checks, some focus on the lead, and some other technical issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Link "atomic number" the first time.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Image captions should have a full stop if they are complete sentences or more than one sentence.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What's a "valence electron"?
 * ✅, now linked StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IMAGES, "Lead images should usually be no wider than "300px""...
 * ✅ StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean in the lead by "isolated"?
 * ✅ StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't repeatedly link the same article, such as Chemical Society.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Contents" is an odd section heading.
 * ✅, hopefully this is better. StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, per WP:ACCESS that colours alone should not be used to denote a specific property.
 * Mousing over one of the cells in the table gives the same info already. StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-English refs should have a language parameter.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also is a bit overkill, Photovoltaic effect for instance, isn't directly relevant to the periodic table.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the Dirac discussion is a bit unclear. I think you can have neutral atoms above 137 or 173, but these atoms don't have electrons in the 1s shell; instead the 1s electrons occupy the next subshell in the with quantum number 6, 7 or 8. Am I correct? Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to unsepttrium, a positron would be spontaneously emitted if the 1s orbital were not filled, which would quickly annihilate with an electron, forming an ion. This is referenced, so I have added the fact and the reference to the article. StringTheory11 00:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think there needs to be a small section on popular culture. The periodic table is ubiquitous in science highschool labs, and I am sure there can be a small section on that. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get me started on how many times I tried to add a popular culture section to alkali metal (all those parties throwing alkali metals into water), and how many times it was deleted. :-( IMHO, both alkali metal and periodic table deserve a popular culture section. Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me that ADOMAH is an acronym. Can you find out what is it supposed to mean? Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ StringTheory11 00:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the origin of word ADOMAH, see (at the bottom of the home page). Drova (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Already ✅ StringTheory11 00:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RJH comments The citations will need plenty of TLC before you successfully take it through FAC. Believe me, they will check every little detail. Here are some examples of concerns I noticed:
 * "From elements to atoms: a history of chemical composition": is the bold-faced 92 meant to be a page number?
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation for "Recommendations: 31st meeting, PAC for Nuclear Physics" is pretty sparse. Can more detail be added?
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These name lists are inconsistent with the format in the other citations:
 * "C. Samanta, P. Roy Chowdhury and D.N. Basu"
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Valery Tsimmerman"
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "G. Elert"
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These citations are missing the title of the paper:
 * "Bjorken, J. D.; Drell, S. D. (1964)."
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Greiner, W.; Schramm, S. (2008)"
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The footnotes need to be made highly consistent and reasonably thorough, so it's worth going through the list a couple of times to make sure.
 * Can an ISBN be found for the following?
 * "Eisberg, R.; Resnick, R. (1985)"
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mazurs, E.G. (1974)" -- also needs a page number
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Periodic Law can be understood in terms of the Tetrahedral Sphere Packing!": publisher?
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Charles Janet: unrecognized genius of the periodic system": a doi link?
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For citations such as "Gray, p. 6", I'd recommend using sfn.
 * "A Short History of Nearly Everything": this cite lists a location; other book publications do not. That inconsistency will get dinged during FAC.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Life of the Chemical Society"": double quote.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Painless Learning Placemats: Periodic Table of the Elements": author? ISBN?
 * This fact is really hard to get a good ref for, as it is mostly common knowledge, so it isn't referenced in that many places. I hope the new ref works, although I have to admit it is a stretch.... StringTheory11 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. Note that I wasn't suggesting that the citation should be replaced; just that it seemed like there should be additional details about the reference in the citation. Regards, RJH(talk) 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't be surprised to see the topic of WP:JARGON arise during the FAC because this article uses a lot of technical terms without explaining them. In some cases I'm not certain that just linking the terms will be sufficient.
 * In the lead it says, "These gaps form four distinct rectangular...". No "gaps" were previously mentioned, leaving a gaping hole in the description, as it were.


 * ✅ StringTheory11 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first use of "quantum shell" needs to be linked because many readers won't have a clue what this means. Ditto with "electron sub-shells" and "electron shell".


 * ✅ StringTheory11 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your FAC. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)