From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I might want to see more formal prose.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose fails to impress. "Thus the chalcogens bear copper" is inaccurate, for example, and the prose doesn't flow as well as I hope (though I understand that you are describing an entire element group. Also, I see quite a few typos (19 th century, for instance).
    Comment. Typos fixed. King Jakob C 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    I still see instances of saying livermorium is made in nuclear reactors - it is made in particle accelerators. Also, I might again want to see a better flow in the article (if possible, if not it's not a big issue). "Not much is known about polonium's properties, but it is thought to be a metal" - I would try to make mention of the fact that this is disputed. Not much otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    Fixed. King Jakob C 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    "Thus the chalcogens bear copper" is probably meant to mean that they tend to combine with copper, but this statement as-is is definitely wrong. In addition, livermorium is made in particle accelerators, not nuclear reactors. Also, I see two bare references that should be converted to full citations.
    Comment. I fixed a few of the not-so-great sentences and phrases (including the thing about particle accelerators/nuclear reactors), and removed (or commented out) some of the uncited stuff. Which references are bare references? King Jakob C 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    References 6-9, 19, 21, 36, and 38 have incomplete citations. I generally use the ProveIt gadget to do citations, see your user preferences if you'd like to use it - it'll make it easy to fill out full citations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    Which sources aren't reliable? King Jakob C 15:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    It's not about their reliability. It's about the completeness of their citations. Normally an on-hold lasts only 1 week, but I will give an extension to 10 days from the original date of the review to fix these issues (until 1 February). Unfortunately the GA will have to fail if these issues aren't addressed by then.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    OK, I fixed most of the references, but I can't fix references 3 and 9, because they don't list an author.King Jakob C 16:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    The author is not mandatory in that case, but the citation should still be complete (even without the author).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    All done. Publishers are added where possible. Anything else? King Jakob C 23:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The only concern I have here is the organization of information, as it doesn't seem to flow that easily from one element's information to another's.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    Might want to change "recovered from hydrocarbons" to "recovered from the refinement of petroleum/oil" (choose either petroleum/oil), because sulfur isn't strictly a part of hydrocarbons.
  7. Overall:
    Placed on hold while these issues are addressed.

I will go though the article in more detail over the weekend. Nergaal (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Went through most of the articles and references. Did I miss anything? Nergaal (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the references are good. King jakob c 2 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Did it pass?King jakob c 2 (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay (I was quite busy in the past few days).
I still would like the prose to flow better (but if you can give a reason why not, I'd be convinced). I also think a citation is needed for Frasch's discovery of the original process.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I did another copyedit. As for the citation of Frasch's process, I put the citation at the end of the paragraph.King Jakob C2 01:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"However, Carl..." is followed by another "However," sentence - I think that's a bit awkward. The lead also does not fully summarize the article (does not mention applications, for instance).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the "however" sentence. And all of the sections with level-2 headings have something about then mentioned in the lead section.King Jakob C2 12:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
"Livermorium has not been produced in high enough amounts for its role in organisms to be detectable." - a rather jumbled sentence, and likely wrong, as the polonium article and the info on its toxicity clearly contradict it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed that sentence.King Jakob C2 19:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually I mistakenly thought it was dealing w/ Po, but in any case it's a rather jumbled sentence, so if this info is staying it should be written better.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I put the sentence back in, this time just saying that livermorium's toxicity was unknown. Anyway, has it passed now or is there anything else?King Jakob C2 02:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hhm... I'm still a bit skeptical of why we're including livermorium in this because its properties haven't been verified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The sentence regarding livermorium is gone.King Jakob C2 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I mean, how do we know that livermorium is a chalcogen for sure?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I assumed that it was to be regarded as a chalcogen as it is mentioned in the template {{Periodic Table (chalcogens)}}King Jakob C2 12:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, as is the case for the carbon family's article, we can't say it for sure - we have to say "possibly".--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I did say possibly; should the article even mention livermorium elsewhere in the article, as its chalcogen status is uncertain?King Jakob C2 12:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
On that, it may be good to mention relativistic effects on why livermorium may or may not be a member.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that John Emsley's book Nature's Building Blocks states that livermorium is a member of group 16 (i.e., the chalcogens).King Jakob C2 23:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
But barring chemical experiments we can never be sure.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I wrote in the article that livermorium is predicted to be a chalcogen.King Jakob C2 02:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What is being in group 16? What is being a chalcogen?

The shape of the modern periodic table forces Lv to occupy the space below Po. That much is clear. It is in the vertical column marked 16 even if it does not behave chemically like its lighter congeners (look at Fl). But is that enough for being in group 16? Is a group merely a vertical column in the periodic table? That seems to be not strong enough a definition. Or is it something more? But then, consider element 118. As a gas, it is almost certainly very ignoble. Does that bar it from being titled a "noble gas"? If trivial names and IUPAC numbering names are synonymous, does that also bar it from being a group 18 element? But does that make any sense? And what about the old CAS and old IUPAC names? And does referring to a group as a family show any change in meaning or connotation?

An even stronger question: what is a chalcogen? Must a chalcogen follow its group's trivial name, combining with metals in ores? But then, polonium does not do that, and no one seriously questions its status as a chalcogen. But then does it really mean anything stronger than "group 16 element"? And just what does that term mean anyway?

Is that all "group 16" and "chalcogen" mean, being forced by the layout of the periodic table to occupy a space in the column beginning with oxygen and sulfur? But then, why should "halogen" then mean any more, excluding element 117 (and sometimes even astatine, by some authors)? Why is it then treated as connoting more than "chalcogen"? Is it just that the stable members of that family show greater homogenity? But isn't that inconsistent? But is it used that way? And if it is, don't we need some explanation?

TL;DR: This is a confusing issue! What do those IUPAC numbers and trivial names actually mean and imply? Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question about what is a chalcogen, this, this and this all indicate that chalcogens are in fact just the column on the periodic table, which would mean that livermorium is one of them.
As for the question about halogens, one could reasonably consider that the halogens as either a group with similar chemical properties (like metalloids), or a column in the periodic table.King Jakob C2 17:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your first link states that O, S, Se, Te, and Po [Lv excluded, maybe they haven't updated it yet?] are the chalcogens and that they form group VIa (IUPAC: 16). Does that mean anything different from them being in group 16?
Your second and third links seem (to me, at least) to support your statement that "chalcogen" and "group 16" are synonymous.
But none of these sources consider Lv (not even a brief mention, not even as "element 116"), which is problematic as that is the element in question. Is it a chalcogen by definition by virtue of its position in the periodic table (gained from its atomic number of 116), or is it not? If it is not, is the only way it could be officially accepted as a chalcogen a demonstration of its chemical properties? Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Just to avoid misunderstandings, when I say "group" without qualification I mean the concept referred to at group (periodic table). I'm mentioning this because you compared the halogens to the metalloids. (Do all the halogens have similar chemical properties? The first four certainly do, but At, not so much. 117 should be even worse, although 171 should be like Cl and Br again. As such, can we consider them a group using your implicit definition of a collection of elements with similar chemical properties? They are still a vertical column in the periodic table, and must stay that way for periodicity, but is that all a group means? Is that all its trivial name means?) Double sharp (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make with the external links is that a group (like the chalcogens) is a column in the periodic table. Group (periodic table) and Template:Periodic table (group names) also seem to agree with this. So, given the current arrangement of the periodic table, livermorium would have to be a chalcogen.King Jakob C2 17:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course it is. But is it just that? Or is it something else? Is a group described as a column in the periodic table because the elements in the column have similar chemical properties such that they conform to the definition of a group? Then what happens if we do not know the chemical properties of an element that would otherwise be in the group? I apologize if I am being confusing, but this is an interesting question. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The elements in a column don't have similar chemical properties (that's why groups with similar properties, like the metalloids don't always occupy just one column), so the definition of a group can't have anything to do with that...unless one considers valence electrons; if periodic law holds up, every chalcogen should be missing exactly 2.King Jakob C2 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
From group (periodic table): "The explanation of the pattern of the table is that the elements in a group have similar physical or chemical characteristic of the outermost electron shells of their atoms (i.e., the same core charge), as most chemical properties are dominated by the orbital location of the outermost electron." Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Which is what I was saying above.King Jakob C2 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But it means that if the valence electron configuration is the same (s2p4 for every chalcogen), then the chemical properties should also be similar. And indeed, S, Se, and Te are quite similar chemically, of course going down the nonmetal-to-metal gradation. O is an outlier here and is actually commonly excluded from the chalcogens: Po is so metallic that it doesn't behave like a textbook chalcogen anymore. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that, I think the article can be  passed now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)