Talk:Strontium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It burns in air to produce.. - not clear what "It" refers to given previous sentence

 Done Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Besides the simple oxide SrO, the peroxide SrO2 and yellow superoxide Sr(O2)2 are also known - "are known" seems a bit perfunctory - would help if some brief notes on rarity/how made added for the two extra compounds

Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Any info on the superoxide? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not that I could find. The one source I found that mentions it could only detect it through ESR spectroscopy. Since KO₂ is already a potent explosive, and Sr²⁺ is smaller and more highly charged than K⁺, I think I can see why this is the case. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't get any feel for what Organostrontium compounds actually are or why they are notable.

Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated about 30,000 km2 with greater than 10 kBq/m2 with 90Sr. _ I'd a dd a footnote trying to relate this number to upper limit of safe exposure

This may be a problem. First of all, the units don't match: for radiation doses, you want the sievert, not the becquerel. Secondly, even if you were to try to calculate from this, it may not be a reasonable assumption to make that the ⁹⁰Sr is uniformly distributed: for instance SrCl₂ is soluble and will hence be mobile, but SrCO₃ will not be so. Perhaps a better comparison would be that it makes up 5% of all the ⁹⁰Sr we have released into the environment? Double sharp (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just something to give it some context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated figures in production would be good.

Updated to 2014. Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

In the Applications section, I'd move material on the decline of CRT to sentence 2 in opening para as it's pretty precipitous and notable.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Its uncontrolled presence in bones can cause.. - "uncontrolled" is possibly redundant?

Removed. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Would be good to provide a link or exact source location for File:World Strontium Production 2014.svg

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please format all reference dates the same way.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

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

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

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)