Wikipedia:Peer review/Table of nuclides (complete)/archive1

Table of nuclides (complete)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I think it doesn't need much to become featured.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Question: What is the relationship of this article to Table of nuclides? If this is meant to be an offshoot of the larger-scope article, i think it cannot possibly become featured without the larger-scope article being much better developed. Relationships between the articles need to be clear. For example, "Table of nuclides (complete)" conceivably could be a section in the Table of nuclides article, with a summary there and a "main article" link pointing to this expanded explanation of what a complete type of table is, as opposed to other types of tables that are to be discussed in the "Table of nuclides" article. Also, is there documentation of "Table of nuclides (complete)" as being the common name for a particular type of table? I hope this helps. doncram (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is pretty cool - I have only seen these in print before. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Per doncram's comment above, would a different name help? Perhaps "Complete table of nuclides"? or "Table of all nuclides" or "Table of of nuclides with a half life longer than ..."?
• The print versions I have seen and the Brookhaven web site (more on that later) all start in the bottom left corner and go to the top right - that seems to be the convention. This starts at top left and goes to bottom right. I can imagine it is easier to code that way here, but is that acceptable? How much weight should / does the standard convention for presenting this type of information have?
• The lead does not really summarize or explain the table sufficiently. Although the symbols Z and n are wikilinked, I would add them to the mention of atomic number (Z) and neutron number (n). I think it is useful / interesting to include some summary information in the lead too - so which element has the most nuclides? Which Z has the most nuclides? How many total nuclides are there listed here? That sort of thing might make this a bit less dry.
• It is not clear to me what the selection criteria are for this table. This phrase in the first sentence in the lead including all with half-life of at least one day seems very odd as most of the nuclides in the table are white in color and thus have half lives less than a day.
• There are a number of formatting issues with the table, chielfy inconsistent use of balnk cells / squares in the table. For example, the row with n = 53 has no blank cells, but the row for n = 49 has one blank cell (there is no Rh-194, so why not drop the Rh cell down one cell?) or n = 77 and n = 78 have blank cells ABOVE elements, which looks even odder. I can see a blank cell where there are nuclides on either side (n = 64 row, Ba column, there are Ba-119 and Ba-121, but no Ba-120) but when it is the beginning or end of a row or column, it just loooks odd and is done inconsistently.
• There is an awful lot of white space - could some images of elements / isotopes be added?
• The one and only ref is not formatted correctly - internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The one and only ref is also given as an external link, I thought you were not supposed to link exactly the same page in both places.
• The iodine column is very narrow - can it be set wider?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)