Talk:Berkelium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll review the article--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As I go on reviewing, the table will be filled more. Something isn't filled. Be patient :)

• I've found a capture that seems not so good to me: "Double-hexagonal close packing with the layer sequence ABAC in the crystal structure of α-americium (A: green, B: blue, C: red)." Why americium is here?
  • done
• "1 M sodium hydroxide solutions" what M is?
  • done
• it mentions two compound that seem to be Bk(I), (BkNO3)3·4H2O and Bk2O, but this isn't reflected in the infobox. The infobox should be updated, or this clarified.
  • good catches
• some images lack alt texts and the one with curves lacks author
  • improved all, added authors. Nergaal (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• "space group P63/mmc, lattice parameters of a = 341.6 pm and c = 1106.9 pm." could this and other space groups be rewritten in some way to make this at least a bit understandable?
  • This is a bit tricky. "(space group C2/c, lattice constants a = 1247 pm, b = 1058 pm, c = 817 pm)" was before " (Pearson symbol mS60, space group C2/c No. 15, lattice constants a = 1247 pm, b = 1058 pm, c = 817 pm)". The space group describes the symmetry of the crystals, while the lattice parameters describe the size of the repeating units. I am not sure how to change the presentation without removing the information (otherwise really important to describe the structure) completely. Nergaal (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    Space group and lattice constants are needed to describe the crystal symmetry for those who want to compare it with other elements, even without knowing what those symbols mean - simplifying it to, e.g., "hexagonal" is same as calling tiger shark as shark. Pearson symbols can be safely removed (an alternative presentation); space group No. can be removed, but is not redundant - a simple example why: many cubic crystals have same symmetry (e.g. Fm3m) but different unit cell size and thus different space group No. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    R u sure that the number is dependent on the cell size? Nergaal (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    Different number merely tells that the cell is different, within the same symmetry. The difference might be in the cell size or in some other parameter. PS. Sorry "cell size" meant "number of atoms per unit cell, surely not just the a,b,c, values - I better not use this confusing term. Materialscientist (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Maybe, you should instead briefly describe the symmetry? I'm not sure that most readers require space groups. Also, about lattice constants. Maybe instead of "lattice constants a = 1247 pm, b = 1058 pm, c = 817 pm" this could go as "lattice constants of 1247, 1058 and 817 pm"?

    Symmetry is a good idea (thinking), "lattice constants of" is not - the a,b,c, notation conventionally identified the high-symmetry c axis which can't be worked out from the numbers alone (the largest is usually c but not always). Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

<indent>Sorry, I missed the split to Compounds of berkelium. Indeed, all technical details can be kept there and removed from the berkelium article, and I've done (some of) that Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• • That was exactly my plan I just had to leave from de computer for a few hours. Thanks for taking care of it. Nergaal (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Link GPa to gigapascal?
  • done
• "Ag(I)-S2O82–" this is Ag2S2O8, right? Also, it would sweet to expand Bk to berkelium, Ag2S2O8 to silver(I) peroxydisulfate, ²⁵¹
  ₉₈Cf
  to californium-251 and so on, at least where it is easy. I don't think most readers understand what ²⁵¹
  ₉₈Cf
  is for, and that all known the principles of chemical formulae like, say, Cr2O72–, which is easily replaced with "dichromate ion"

  Not to bug you, but I believe this logic is rather questionable: only a a chemist would understand complex terms like "silver(I) peroxydisulfate", but most people have enough education to read Ag₂S₂O₈. A compromise could be to use the formula and wikilink it or give both names. For isotope names, it is acceptable to use californium-251 and ²⁵¹Cf in the same article (but not Cf-251), but better keep one style within one subsection. Normally the isotope section is written using the ²⁵¹Cf style. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

  • reduced the short-hand usage significantly Nergaal (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Bk[8] and O[4]" meaning of this can be guessed, but that's not what we like. In fact, the best about the whole coordination numbers stuff could be first appearing "n-coordinated" replaced with "n-coordinated (coordinated with n other atoms)"(or molecules, see context) and then everywhere state only "n-coordinated"
  • fixed

To be continued--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Compounds

all compounds have lattice parameters, but it doesn't look like they're really notable. The whole section.

A compound exists, maybe has a color. Lattice parameters. Next compound.

See above. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• "berkelium(IV) chloride Cs2BkCl6" I'd like all compounds like that to have full names, caesium berkelium(IV) hexachloride. Also, I'm doubtful of "berkelium(III) chloride, Cs2NaBkCl3"

  Please see above. Consider caesium sodium berkelium(III) trichloride and Cs₂NaBkCl₃. I argue that the former is quite incomprehensible and the latter is clear. Granted, the former gives oxidation state which needs to be worked out in the formula case, but the composition is primary and is hard to grasp from the former. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  That's not in the article anymore, but I'll explain. I want to see both name and formula, that'd probably be the best. About Cs₂NaBkCl₃, the only thing I don't like is the formula. Since it's a Bk(III) compound, I think it should be Cs₂NaBkCl₆ (the way it's also mentioned in the table) These are now only tips for compounds of berkelium.

• There are several refs like "Peterson, p. 34", but there's more than one ref from Peterson

  It was Ok (notes are to be looked in the bibliography), but I've set up Harvard linking for clarity. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  My bad. But thanks for doing this! It wasn't for nothing since it got better--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Bk2O2S, Bk(NO3)3·4H2O, BkCl3·6H2O, Bk2(SO4)3·12H2O and Bk2(C2O4)3·4H2O." again a list of compounds referred only by formula, which I'd like to see the way name (formula)

  Done. Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As of now, it's the only thing I don't like. I'll check the article again and then I'll award GA--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, nothing keeps me from not listing the article as a GA, so here it goes! Thanks for your work! Please, make sure not to leave the article now. At least americium to einsteinium articles have the potential for future FAC--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)