Talk:Unbinilium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Clear, yes; concise... maybe. Not going to require obvious improvements since it is such an arcane and technical topic, but it could certainly benefit from attention to sentence length and complexities.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead needs to do a better job of summarizing whole article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The formatting of some of the references, of which there certainly appear to be an appropriate amount and distribution, could stand some work.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues noted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	This is a well sourced article on original research. :-)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found with Earwig's detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues noted.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues noted.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Would be nice to add more, but since no one's actually made it yet, there's really nothing less "science-y" to depict.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements.

First Read Through

I would expect there to be something about the island of stability in the lead. The lead as a whole seems short, but I haven't gone through and digested the whole article yet.
- Hmm, this is slightly problematic. You see, under the latest predictions (Zagrebaev 2013) on where the island is, E120 is not actually in it. It should be instead around the beta-stability line at Z = 112 ± 3 (centred at around ²⁹¹Cn and ²⁹³Cn). So E120 ends up being at the "outer edge", beyond which there is no way to continue without new technology. Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Better? Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, mentioning the island and explaining that the element is probably not within it is fine. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph in "History" seems to have nothing to do with Unbinilium specifically. I suspect the paragraph ordering should be rearranged to actually talk about the element in question in the first non-lead paragraph.
- The reason this is in front is because it is impossible to use the term "cold fusion" in its sober sense without it being mistaken for the crank sense. Added the phrase "Superheavy elements, such as unbinilium...", to make it clear that E120 is an SHE and so the foregoing concerns apply. Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ununennium and unbinilium (elements 119 and 120) are the lightest elements that have not yet been synthesized, and attempts to synthesize them would push the limits of current technology, due to the decreasing cross sections of the production reactions and their probably short half-lives,[10] expected to be on the order of microseconds." 1) Break it into multiple sentences, please. 2) Lightest elements that have not yet been synthesized made me question whether something heavier had actually been synthesized... but that doesn't appear to have been the case. Is there a better way to phrase that to not give that impression?
- Better? Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is pb in "No atoms were detected providing a limit of 1.6 pb" picobarn? Might want to link that one too, even though fb is linked earlier, the relationship of the two measurement elements is not immediately obvious to people who don't usually work with that range of SI prefixes. :-)
- Yes, picobarns. Linked. Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The metal–metal bond lengths in these M2 molecules increase down the group from Ca2 to Ubn2, while the metal–metal bond-dissociation energies generally increase from Ca2 to Ba2 and then drop precipitously to Ubn2, which should be the most weakly bound of all the group 2 homodiatomic molecules: this is because of the increasing participation of the p3/2 and d electrons as well as the relativistically contracted s orbital.[40]" That could stand to be broken into two sentences. It's already technically complex, but the colon provides an adequate spot to break as well.
- Broken. Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the text seems in decent shape, but quite dense. I'm sure this is not an article 8th graders are going to want to peruse, but it could probably stand to be a little less dense overall. Not a fail criteria, just a recommendation. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good with the improvements so far. Can someone go through and clean up the references? I think that's the outstanding thing, although I will want to systematically go through the lead again before signing off on it. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have worked on the references. Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that looks fine to me. Good job, again. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]