Wikipedia:Peer review/Period 8 element/archive1

Period 8 element

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 receive suggestions on how to improve it to GA.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Don't overlink "IUPAC systematic names" in the lead.
Define what IUPAC is before using the abbreviation.
Who is " Pekka Pyykkö" and why should I care about what he said or did?
Avoid overlinking in general.
You link "g-block" on the second usage, and have it bold in the first usage. Both need fixing.
What is "the Madelung rule"
Per WP:ACCESS you shouldn't use just colour to display a given property. You need a screen-readable symbol too.
What's GSI?
What's JINR?
Resolve the [dubious] tag.
"Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung" don't over link, and use this (or better, the English translation) in the first time instead of just GSI.
What's GANIL?
"quantum and relativistic effects the " both these terms are overlinked.
Pyykkö model section needs expanding.
Note 1 needs reference.
Electron configuration table should use col and row scopes for screenreaders per MOS:DTT.
Avoid bare URLs in the refs.
Format refs correctly (e.g. ref 28 has no title, author, publisher info etc.)

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very first thought (didn't even read carefully): this article has an incorrect grouping (in sense of readability). "Elements" is a section to discuss physics and/or chemistry. Nucleosynthesis is the one to go alone (as it is so tedious to read and in fact boring for most people), not properties!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]