| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed GAN due to copyediting issues. I hope some reviewer will help spot some of the problems with the text.
Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Chipmunkdavis Well here goes, with my chemistry knowledge in hand!
- Second paragraph on the lead needs rewriting, probably splitting (History and Properties)
- First sentence is written badly, probably should split into two sentences with perhaps more exact dates (there was a three year difference)?
- As much as I love science articles on wikipedia and their use of wikilinks to even more sciencey articles to explain terms, the sentence "Improved experimental techniques allowed for partial chemical characterization of rutherfordium. The chemical properties compare well with the chemistry of the other group 4 elements, even though some calculations had indicated that the element might show significantly different properties due to relativistic effects" needs to be translated into English! Elaborate on the chemical properties of the group 4 elements, explain whatever "compare well" means, and perhaps add an "initially" after "even though". Also, add more wikilinks here.
- History
- "Researchers there bombarded 242Pu with accelerated 22Ne ions and separated the reaction products by gradient thermochromatography after conversion to chlorides by interaction with ZrCl4", one long run on sentence. At present it is also unclear on the order of events. Are the products converted to chlorides or the ions?
- The main article you have listed in Naming Controversy youve wikilinked in that section. Remove the wikilink or the main, and if you leave the main perhaps consider changing to a see also or some such, as it deals with more then Rutherfordium.
- Perhaps more dates in the naming controversy, and reordering. You jump from initial names to IUPAC back to initial names and so on.
- Last paragraph in naming controversy. NOTHING TO DO with naming controversy!
- Nucleosynthesis, start by removing repetition about names such as in the third paragraph of hot fusion studies.
- You have two main article links to Isotopes of Rutherfordium. I suppose the main link for the Isotopes section would be more appropriate.
- Don't know if this has to be said, but deal with that citation needed. It opens a whole section of the article, definitely not minor.
- Give a short maybe even halfsentence summary of what things like Nucleosynthesis and Isotopes are, for the uninformed.
Most of the article seems to be a basic explanation of the different aspects of Rutherfordium, so I won't go into all the changes that could be made. What I suggest is getting someone you know with little to no background in chemistry, and seeing how much they understand when they read the article. If they have issues and you can explain it to them, try rewrite the article in a similar manner to your explanation. Additionally, add more wikilinks throughout the entire article, just for ease of clarification and help!
As a last point, may I express my own disappointment is wasn't named kurchatovium :( Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Cryptic C62 Hey mate! I don't have much interest in writing chemistry articles anymore, but I would be happy to provide some feedback. I'll be leaving comments on the article's prose here and copyediting as I go.
- "Chemistry experiments have confirmed that rutherfordium behaves as the heavier homologue to hafnium in group 4." This sentence overlaps with the chemistry information presented in the second paragraph. I suggest merging this into the second paragraph, and perhaps replacing it with a statement about how the different isotopes decay.
- "The priority of the discovery and therefore the naming of the element was disputed between Soviet and American scientists, and a final decision was taken only in 1997." Awkward phrasing. How about "Because both teams of scientists claimed to have independently discovered the element, a dispute arose over which team should have the right to name it. The final decision to use rutherfordium, as proposed by the American team, was not reached until 1997."
- "The team identified spontaneous fission activity contained within a volatile chloride portraying eka-hafnium properties." This is the first usage of the "eka" notation, which is not mentioned in the lead and not explained adequately in the article. More importantly, how would they have had any idea what properties eka-hafnium had? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "The team identified spontaneous fission activity contained within a volatile chloride that had properties similar to hafnium."
- "conclusively synthesized" What does "conclusively" mean in this context?
- "The American synthesis was independently confirmed in 1973" Confirmed by whom?
More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sweet, this was really fast. I will take a close look over Thanksgiving break and fix all the issues you guys fount. Thank you very much! Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)