Talk:Americium/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC) This article appears neutral, stable and well-written. I have tried to improve aspects of punctuation, but MOS compliance on stuff like non-breaking spaces is a not a GA criterion - was just doing it to get the article as good as possible.
The article contains some fairly technical information but it appears to me to be written in a very accessible style. Citations need a little work: cites to online sources in some cases lack retrieval dates. The "Public Health Statement for Americium" cite lacks either an author or publisher. Cites 22, 45, 88, 89, and 99 (at present, anyway) lack anything other than a title.
The images generally appear appropriate. I did some quick checking, but I'd hate to be steering this one through FAC in terms of ensuring that the iamges really were free. I also suggest that the non-free use rationale for "File:Americium34.jpg" may not stand up to scrutiny, because I'm not sure it is necessary to show this in pictures rather than in words. Not making it an issue at GAN - just flagging that it might be if ever the article is taken to FAC.
I found the article interesting, and as comprehensive as a layperson can judge it to be. Improving the citations is all that is needed for GA. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Working on it. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK. SHould also have mentioned: there is a "clarification needed" tag in the article - I certainly had no idea what was meant by "strong neutron influence" - can an editor take a look? Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I clashed (ec) with Nergaal on references, but would leave this to him (IMO, they are already Ok for GA, but can surely be improved). "strong neutron fluence" there means that a large number of neutrons/(cm² second) is needed for multiple neutron capture, i.e. the isotope which already captured one neutron is in an unstable excited state. It should have enough neutrons around, at that specific time, to capture another, before it decays. This is common knowledge in this field, thus I'm not sure how to clarify this. Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is high neutron flux a synonym? Nergaal (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think so, and my dictionary says fluence is sort of obsolete. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, that will do at GAN, thanks for your prompt work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, that will do at GAN, thanks for your prompt work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think so, and my dictionary says fluence is sort of obsolete. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is high neutron flux a synonym? Nergaal (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I clashed (ec) with Nergaal on references, but would leave this to him (IMO, they are already Ok for GA, but can surely be improved). "strong neutron fluence" there means that a large number of neutrons/(cm² second) is needed for multiple neutron capture, i.e. the isotope which already captured one neutron is in an unstable excited state. It should have enough neutrons around, at that specific time, to capture another, before it decays. This is common knowledge in this field, thus I'm not sure how to clarify this. Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK. SHould also have mentioned: there is a "clarification needed" tag in the article - I certainly had no idea what was meant by "strong neutron influence" - can an editor take a look? Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)