Talk:Unbihexium/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: UtopianPoyzin (talk · contribs) 00:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has been picking this article up, so I guess that leaves me the honor. I will disclose this: I am a member of WP:ELEM Yet, despite me WANTing to make edits to this article, it surprising to say that I HAVE NOT made a single one during the time ComplexRational was working (and if memory serves me right, I have not made any edits here). Therefore, I am uninvolved, so we may proceed. If anybody wants to verify my review, that would also be acceptable and appreciated. Now don't expect me to go easy on you just because I wanted to help out on the article (but then other stuff got in the way). Hopefully I can still add content of my own AFTER the review. Anywards, let's begin!
- @UtopianPoyzin: Thanks for taking this up. It is indeed true that you have made no edits to this article, and I never would expect an easy review. ComplexRational (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- (Okay, just checking ^.^) I had to clarify that I had no involvement with the article as I too am part of the WikiProject. Okay, now the review is coming.
From a first look, ComplexRational once again does a fine job with an article about an unsynthesized element. It looks good right off the bat, but let's actually evaluate it now.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): (Prev: 
)
- Prose is clear and concise, nothing is obscured and everything is generally presented in a tidy fashion. However, there are Manual of Style breaks that will need addressing. Here are some preliminary gaps I noticed.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
"Unbihexium has attracted attention" By whom?
"Despite several reported observations" By whom?
"more recent studies suggest" By whom? It wouldn't hurt to provide citations in the lead, yet these wordings, especially the utmost former and latter, are big no-nos. "Several reported observations" could get away with a citation.
"widely debated" On an additional note, you will have to prove that this is a "wide" debate, or else I'd get rid of the adjective. Provide a citation here to, prove that it is even debated.
Partly done Rewritten, as debated is probably not the correct term to describe a wide range of different predictions. ComplexRational (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
In general, the word "predicted" is fine, because no details are truly known until synthesis; they are just held as what will most certainly be likely. Just be careful with phrases like "this is debated" and "scientists say" and "research suggests"; actually these phrases could probably be disposed of due to WP:WEASEL.
"Even so, it will likely be a great challenge to continue past elements 120 or 121" Too casual; we don't "continue past" these elements, we synthesize elements with shorter half-lives.
Done ComplexRational (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the weasel words were taken care of. Minor noncompliances with the MoS are acceptable for GA, and we are not striving for FA here. All wild claims were referenced by an easily accessible link, so the readers know that you aren't spouting lies. I'm fine to accept this now.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): (Prev: ) d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- All set here, the sources you provide are very solid. Am waiting for 1b completion to satisfy 2c, however.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused): (Prev: )
- My biggest concern is the beginning 3 (4) paragraphs of Unbihexium#Nuclear stability and isotopes, because most of what you said is eerily similar to every other similar section in the unsynthesized element pages. Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but you really need to talk about Unbihexium. You only mention "ubh" or "unbihexium" once in the first to paragraphs, which are just summaries of the Island of Stability article. This information may be useful on THAT article, but the different claims about where the island of stability is located is unnecessary here, and extends the article longer than what it needs to be. The third and fourth paragraphs can be kept (and shifted upward), but even there, you introduce many claims about the location of the hypothetical island of stability, many of which contradict each other due to being calculated in different years. At least these deal with unbihexium however. Third paragraph could use a minor cleanup to focus solely on the article topic, fourth paragraph in the section seems relatively fine.
- a (major aspects):
- I rewrote the first paragraph entirely and tried to refocus/shorten the second and third. I believe that a brief summary of shell closures is relevant here (although the main article is island of stability), but I tried to limit the vague discussion and only elaborate on the predictions that directly concern unbihexium. Is the focus clear enough now? ComplexRational (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ComplexRational: While the main article is the Island of Stability, it is a fair given that readers would click on the link if they were interested in learning. However, I cannot negate the importance of the island of stability in terms of whether the concept is relevant, which it is. Once again, you fail to disappoint. Looking through the other criteria to see if they hold up.
- I rewrote the first paragraph entirely and tried to refocus/shorten the second and third. I believe that a brief summary of shell closures is relevant here (although the main article is island of stability), but I tried to limit the vague discussion and only elaborate on the predictions that directly concern unbihexium. Is the focus clear enough now? ComplexRational (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Stable
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- An additional image would be beneficial, such as a possible electron shell diagram here:
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Then again, it isn't required for this article, so everything is fine here. It's a hypothetical chemical element after all.
- Done I found that I could incorporate File:Next proton shell.svg into this article as it is a visual representation of the shell closure, and I indicated this depiction in the caption. ComplexRational (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Then again, it isn't required for this article, so everything is fine here. It's a hypothetical chemical element after all.
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: (Prev: )
- Nothing too major, I have firm trust in ComplexRational that all of the flukes will be removed, and the article will be in tip-top shape for tomorrow.
- Pass/Fail: (Prev:
I'll be lurking around if you need to contact me about anything, will re-look tomorrow. 7 days max, you get it.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- @UtopianPoyzin: From what I see, some of the initial comments (on the lead) already are answered in the body, and I do not really want to introduce too many details (which then require specific citations) into the lead. As far as widely debated, I tried to reword it to emphasize different predictions among different models (and the resulting lack of consensus), though I'm not entirely sure if this wording works. Finally, there may be one or two references I can use in the lead that broadly summarize these predictions, but I'm not entirely sure if it's necessary. I only had time to check a few small things today, though; I'll take a closer look at everything tomorrow. ComplexRational (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. I wouldn't lie and say that those generalizations are never addressed. My point is, it is often in bad taste in WP:MOS to state "scientists say" and then either don't give references, or wait until the middle to address them. Keep in mind that most readers will gain the most information from the lead, so it is helpful to include citations there. That is the reason why /[1] exists in the first place, so that you can use the same citation multiple times. That way, it is clear who you are referring to, because it is the people speaking in your citation. One could argue that this objection would fall under the verifiability criteria, but your sources are all there. They just need to be used properly. "Many recent studies suggest" means nothing if the studies that you reference aren't located in an accessible place. That's all I was getting at with this point, sorry. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- If it helps, this is the first time that you have really made this mistake. Unbiquadium, to check, was completely free of this. All you need to do is generally avoid referencing vague groups of people. Specifically WP:WEASEL. There was a small issue at Unbibium, and you can see how I fixed it. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think I understand. I added two references for broad summary statements in the lead. ComplexRational (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- If it helps, this is the first time that you have really made this mistake. Unbiquadium, to check, was completely free of this. All you need to do is generally avoid referencing vague groups of people. Specifically WP:WEASEL. There was a small issue at Unbibium, and you can see how I fixed it. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. I wouldn't lie and say that those generalizations are never addressed. My point is, it is often in bad taste in WP:MOS to state "scientists say" and then either don't give references, or wait until the middle to address them. Keep in mind that most readers will gain the most information from the lead, so it is helpful to include citations there. That is the reason why /[1] exists in the first place, so that you can use the same citation multiple times. That way, it is clear who you are referring to, because it is the people speaking in your citation. One could argue that this objection would fall under the verifiability criteria, but your sources are all there. They just need to be used properly. "Many recent studies suggest" means nothing if the studies that you reference aren't located in an accessible place. That's all I was getting at with this point, sorry. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, that should be everything! All of the glaring issues have been fixed, and most everything else reads well. Could potentially be too complicated for non-experts, given the expected knowledge of nuclear fission, but this should be all good besides that. If you continue to work on the article, it would be VERY helpful to present the island of stability in simpler terms. But if you don't, I can't stop you, as everything written is still seemingly correct. With that out of the way, stop working on unsynthesized elements!! Kidding. Good luck with your future endeavors. (Will you pick up Unbitrium, or maybe try something more close to home?) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @UtopianPoyzin: Thank you for the review; we'll see what comes next. I will probably be working on island of stability and history of the periodic table in coming months, but may pick up another SHE if time allows and continue making fine adjustments. Unbitrium may have to wait a bit longer, for the last discussion at WT:ELEM expressed a concern for lacking notability, as there is not very much history or apparent interest for 123 (unlike 119-122, 124, and 126) and most details about isotopes can be generalized to all undiscovered elements. Maybe a few sources could be used to create and/or maintain a draft, but unless something new is published or discovered, I'm a bit doubtful on that for now. ComplexRational (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)