Wikipedia:Peer review/Ununoctium/archive1

Ununoctium

I know this is a very short GA article, about an element that isn't much known about, but has anybody any idea why it should not be an FA? I believe it contains almost everything is known, or presumed, about this element, therefore it should pass the broadness criteria. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have a tough time getting featured because of the length, even if it covers the topic comprehensively, but that's just my impression from other FA discussions on obscure technical topics. But I suppose it's worth trying...

• about the length: this is the shortest FA so far: Hurricane Irene (2005)Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My main comment is regarding the references. The article already cites most of the scientific literature on the topic, which is great, but there are also a lot of citations to websites that may not be as reliable (apsidium.com, webelements.com, and lenntech.com). Now, I don't know of any fact from these websites that is demonstrably wrong, but it would be better to quote a more "solid" source if possible. Done The problem may be that most of the information taken from these sites is of the "seemingly obvious but speculative" kind, such as the likely oxidation state and physical state that the element would have if it actually existed in macroscopic amounts. It is likely that the primary scientific literature will not provide such information because of a reluctance to speculate, but maybe there's a good article somewhere that could be used.

A specific fact that really needs a better source IMO is the claim that Moskowium (Mk) is one of the proposed names for the element. I haven't been able to find any source for it that doesn't seem to trace back to apsidium.com or Wikipedia. Also, proposed by whom? Perhaps this proposed name has only been discussed widely in the Russian-speaking world? The Russian version of this article seems to have some references for the name, but I really have no idea because I don't read Russian. :) I think it's the line that says "Российские учёные, синтезировавшие элемент, а также политики предлагают назвать его московием". Done

I believe this link would be useful [1] if anyone could translate it.Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify status of that site. This is a private site, it contains many doubtful statements, and I would not trust it unless the statements have independent sources. While working on the articles on superheavy elements in Russian wikipedia this summer I removed many suppositions based on the info from that site (an anonymous editor, probably the author of that site, has returned some links and info, and I don't have enough enthusiasm to argue with him). Nevertheless, I think that author of those materials has some contacts in JINR, so the info is often based on rumors circulated there. Done

As to the name Moscowium, I don't know any info published in scientific journals (please let me know if you find some), but there were many publications in Russian press (like refs 9 and 10) based on info from Itkis and Oganessian, so I think it should be mentioned in the article. Kv75 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you find a couple of minutes, could you translate these references (9&10) into english? Just the title and the publisher. Thanks.Nergaal (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

9. NewsInfo (2006-10-17). "Periodic table has expanded" (in Russian). Rambler. Retrieved 2007-12-09.

10. Yemel'yanova, Asya (2006-12-17). "118th element will be named in Russian" (in Russian). vesti.ru. Retrieved 2007-12-09.

If there are some grammatic errors in my translation, please correct them. Kv75 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems ok. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, something that could make the article look longer, more attractive, and maybe more readable would be to include pretty figures representing the decay chain for ununoctium. I'm thinking maybe something like the figures in [2], specifically figure 6b at least. Done Maybe also a figure representing the position of the nuclide in the chart of the nuclides and its relation with the predicted island of stability. Done --Itub (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

more

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some little things.
  • Spelling: thier, nucleii Done
  • Dashes: use n-dashes (–) in page ranges and minus signs (−) in negative numbers (see Wikipedia:MOS#Dashes
  • In the lead, I would hyphenate "noble gas" to show it is being used as an adjective, or rephrase in some way ("the synthetic, transactinide element and noble gas...") Done
  • "until it will is confirmed" Done
  • "less than one part in 100,000" missing period Done
  • "undergo spontaneous fission or undergo alpha decay into 282Uub" second "undergo" unnecessary Done
  • "noble gas above it" maybe "above it in the periodic table"? Done Lesgles (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)