Talk:Meitnerium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 18:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A few minor issues here and there:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The "nuclear isomerism" section could be written to be more accessible to the general public, which generally knows little to nothing about this concept and "alpha lines".
Done Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Nuclear isomerism and experimental chemistry sections (especially the former) need more citations; there may be those who may hold a different view on the latter section, so it's probably a good idea to cite other sources too.
I found a source for ^270mMt, but not ^268mMt. The experimental chemistry of Mt hasn't received as much attention recently as that of Cn and Fl, though. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw keep it on hold until you do find a source, because it seems to be legitimate information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "experimental chemistry" section better now? Double sharp (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Expanded the "Experimental chemistry" section with material from other sources, and located references for the "Nuclear isomerism" section (both ^270mMt and ^268mMt). Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I'm not sure if it's due weight to present only a single viewpoint on the possible experiments on the element.
Done Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
If these can be fixed, I think it can pass.

I think that's probably good to go.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]