Talk:Rubidium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nergaal (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: -->

Specific comments:

• "s the second most electropositive of the non-radioactive alkali elements and melts at a temperature of 39.3 °C (102.7 °F)" - poor sentence; also say that the most elpos is Cs; I think correct is alkali metals not elements
• repetition of "Like other" - use similarly to, etc
• "and does not normally occur in living organisms" - link it better to the previous sentence
• "property could be " - may prove useful
• first para in compounds is unreferenced
• radioactive87Rb - spacing
• "Natural rubidium is radioactive with specific activity of about 670 Bq/g, enough to expose a photographic film in approximately 30 to 60 days" - super interesting but needs citation and mention at what distance
• how about non-natural isotopes?
• any idea why is there so much Rb-87?
• Who is the main producer of the element? (country)

*"m limits its production to 2 to 4 tonnes per year." - in metallic form?

• the history section is thin outside of the discovery information

  There are several points in the other sections but than we have it two times mentioned

• asubchloride - spacing
• with carbon - was it actually coal?
• " The distilled rubidium was pyrophoric and the density differed less than 0.1 g/cm3 and the melting point by less than 1 °C from the now established values" - poor prose
• "0.24 % rubidium oxide" - which one?
• why both uses and appications?

Will do the last two sections a bit later. Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

More:

• the intro says the metal is soft twice, but the body does not say anything about that
• the ionization energy (which is very low) should probably be included in the text
• I suggest moving the first para of application to history since it fits there better if you rename the latter just applications
• "(that is, producing volumes of magnetized 3He gas, with the nuclear spins aligned toward a particular direction in space, rather than randomly)" should be moved out of the paranthesis
• " LPRO series from Datum" - wikilink? anyways, without explaining the acronym it is pretty useless to the reader
• Rubidium-82 is first discussed in the aplications section, althoug stuff like lifetime and possibly the decay pathways shoudl be in teh isotopes section
• btw, what does Rb-87 decompose to? i.e. decay pathway

  I think it is already in the isotope section.--Stone (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• wikilink strontium-82 and probably state its lifetime or rate of transformation into Rb-82
• "this element is kept" change that to metal
• "almost always has +1 oxidation state when dissolved in water" - two points: when it does not? and the oxidation state discussion should be above, not in the precautions section
• "The ions are not particularly toxic, a 70 kg" => "The Rb+ ions are not particularly toxic as a "
• "Rubidium was tested for the influence on manic depression" - should be in the uses section not the precautions one
• "died after a few weeks" - might be nice to be a little less vague

Most of the issues I've listed are easily fixable so I will leave this review open for a few days. Nergaal (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A few more things:

• the term Rubidium standard should probably be mentioned
• Rubidium chloride has some nice aplications - maybe borrow some?

  Borrowed only one the others are very special lab applications

• RbOH is highly corrosive
• flame test for Rb should be mentioned
• any idea what is the typical coordination number for Rb?
• File:Rubidium-oxide-unit-cell-3D-balls-B.png might be nice to use to show tetrahedral coordination

  The coordination chemistry turned out to be complex so I would not like to go into detail here.--Stone (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have sufficient time for a few days, but will take a closer look at the article after Monday. Nergaal (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I have also a lot of other things to do.--Stone (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nice work! Although a few issues are left, most of them were fixed. Therefore, I am passing this article. Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)