Talk:Unbibium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 08:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I've looked at the article and fixed a few minor details. The article is very comprehensive and well-written. There's nothing serious enough to hold up the GA, so I'm passing it. Congratulations! Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thanks for your review! I guess it's time to work on something else (for now)... ComplexRational (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also support as a Good Article. Nice work on Unbibium @ComplexRational:, you tidied it up very nice! Because you already received a pass from Double sharp, make sure you archive the nomination. If you really want to, you can always try to set up an AfC for Unbitrium, the next element in line, or Unbihexium, the only unsynthesized element that has had substantial work completed for synthesis. I personally think that Unbibium is a good stopping point, but an Unbihexium article has existed in the past, so that could be a possibility to try to make. Still, it's up to you. Nice job!

@UtopianPoyzin: Thank you for your support. I saw at other element talk pages that the GA review is automatically archived - is there something else that I must do? Also, I'm unsure about unbitrium and unbihexium because while there are predictions about decay properties and half-lives, no article is devoted solely to one of these elements, I haven't found any predictions about their chemistry other than electron configurations and oxidation states described in extended periodic table, and the former has not even had synthesis attempts. Furthermore, these articles have been recreated and re-redirected numerous times with the same reasoning. I suppose I could create userspace drafts, but there isn't very much to say exclusively about these elements, and it likely will not be easy to gain consensus for creation. That's just my take though. ComplexRational (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: You're right, I'm wrong. There isn't any archiving needed here. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]