Talk:Hassium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The article on first reading is a well-written and relatively understandable. It may be difficult to understand for a reader with no previous knowledge of nuclear synthesis or transition chemistry but this is probably inevitable for an article of this type. More images would be useful, but all the current ones are either free or with an acceptable fair use rationale. There appears to be no major problems, and certainly not any quick-fail criteria, however there were one or two problems:

• I added another picture. I don't think there are many other suitable places, though. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 23 is dead.
  •  Done Not archived at the Wayback Machine, but is available at this website. Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 27 is not sufficient in the case of the link being lost.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• The majority of the Natural Occurence paragraph is speculation and thus needs to be cited to a reliable scientific source.
  • Almost all of it (from "More recently, it was hypothesized..." to "...theoretically possible, but highly unlikely") is referenced by reference 40 (a journal article). Is the way I formatted it OK? Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Probably yes, but I added the reference to other sentences that appeared to be speculation and thus needed to be sourced.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Almost none of what it referenced to Nature's Building Blocks appears in my copy, however it is the 2002 edition and so the Hassium section presumably has been updated? Does it now have its own section and is not merely covered with the rest of the transfermium elements?
  • Yes, it does. Now every element up to element 127 has its own section in Nature's Building Blocks. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• One citation is not sufficient for the 270Hs: prospects for a deformed doubly magic nucleus paragraph - it may support the whole section, but as the full text is not freely available this must be specified.
  •  Done Added a few more refs. Double sharp (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• As per the previous comment, the last two paragraphs on gas phase chemistry require some more citations, as does the physical and atomic paragraph, particularly regarding the claim that it is twice as dense as the densest element.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

Congratulations, we have a new Good Article. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)