Wikipedia:Peer review/Rutherfordium/archive2

Rutherfordium
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in bringing it to FA standards. I think this GA is in good shape, but I would like more people to take a look at it before I send it to the pit full of hungry lions. I have two major worries: (i) MOS issues and copyediting (should be good, but it can always be better; and (ii) accessibility. The latter means that the article might not be very accessible to the casual reader, so I am interested in what I can improve, or alternatively get rid of without decreasing the informative part too much. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

R8R Gtrs' comments

 * I'd like to show not all images have alt texts, h letters standing for hours occur (the latter is really better); and "half-life", "half-time" and "half time" all occur, which I believe should be standardized. Also (that's only my way) not everyone would understand what, say, 267Rf is, and probably, scared of things too hard won't read it. Maybe more to come--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And yeah, not everyone understands what 267Rf is, and appearing in the lead may be frightening for those who know nothing about these things--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The chemical properties of rutherfordium were based on calculation which indicated that the relativistic effects on the electron shell might be strong enough that the p orbitals have a lower energy level than the s orbitals and therefore the element more behaves like lead. With better calculation methods and studies of the chemical properties of rutherfordium compounds it could be shown that rutherfordium behaves according to the rest of the group 4 elements.[10]" Sweet, but why in Naming controversy?
 * "264Rf	1? h	unknown	—" - reason to include in the isotopes chart?

I'll try to add more later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * + →  + 3 or 5 . suggest to turn it to  +  →  + x  (x=3, 5)
 * (possibly unnecessary)"Depending on the energies involved, the former are separated into "hot" and "cold". In hot fusion reactions, very light, high-energy projectiles are accelerated toward very heavy targets (actinides), giving rise to compound nuclei at high excitation energy (~40–50 MeV) that may either fission or evaporate several (3 to 5) neutrons.[11] In cold fusion reactions, the produced fused nuclei have a relatively low excitation energy (~10–20 MeV), which decreases the probability that these products will undergo fission reactions. As the fused nuclei cool to the ground state, they require emission of only one or two neutrons, and thus, allows for the generation of more neutron-rich products.[12] The latter is a distinct concept from that of where nuclear fusion claimed to be achieved at room temperature conditions (see cold fusion).[13]"Reading this para, I don't realize why they use hot fusion reaction at all. Maybe a word on it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)