Wikipedia:Peer review/Ununseptium/archive2

Ununseptium[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA. See the comments at the 1st FAC. Basically, please nitpick everything, and help me get it to use as simple language as possible (but not simpler) to avoid frightening off people with what is (or could be perceived as) masses of jargon.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Praemonitus

Many parts of the article are decently written, but there are a few rough patches. Here's a few specific comments:

"The Russian team desired to use calcium, an element they could not access...": Shouldn't it say berkelium here? I think the sentence may need a rewrite so it makes more sense.
- Done Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...natural calcium from the remaining natural calcium": redundant statement. You can probably just snip everything following the first use of 'calcium'.
- Done Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sufficiently heavy nuclei have not been created as of 2013, however, and, in a table of nuclides, these isotopes tend to have fewer neutrons than elements in those island of stability": This sentence is a bit of a head scratcher. Could you do a rewrite or remove it?
- Done Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Before the synthesis of ununseptium...": the chain of logic in this paragraph seems confusing to me. Can you try and clarify it?
- Done Does this look better? Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...effect shown by that the...": 'that the' looks wrong here.
I don't mind saying that many parts of the Chemistry section went over my head; I don't have nearly enough knowledge of quantum chemistry to review it properly. You might want to request an independent expert review of that section.
In the References, no 'et al' should be italicized per MOS:Ety. During a FAC, you may also get dinged for inconsistent 'et al' placement.
- I set up for all cases with 4+ authors the |displayauthors=3 parameter. Does it look okay now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All except for Oganessian... (2010). Praemonitus (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~In the 'Bibliography' section, the indentation is inconsistent.~~
- Not done Not sure if this is the right way to do it, but the last three entries are single chapters from the first entry. Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this brief review is of some use. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is of use, indeed. Thanks for taking your time.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]