Talk:Noble gas/GA1

GA Review

Gary King (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• A while ago I was planning to work on this article but I gave up not finding anybody else to cooperate. I am happy that someone still had the interest to do it, so here is my helping hand (for now).

1. be very careful with including element 114 as a noble gas. It is NOT in the group 18, and group18=noble gases. I would suggest rather attribuiting element 114 chemical reactivity of a noble gas, but not label it as one.

   It doesn't say in the text that it is a noble gas; the only two mentions of the element are "ununquadium [...] may also turn out to be noble gases", which technically is true since may gives lots of leeway; I purposely did it like this because I didn't want to expand too much on it in the lead. In the body, however, I have "No new discoveries related to noble gases were made until"; related, so that implies it's not a noble gas. "show abnormal noble gas-like properties" also implies this. Gary King (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

2. an ocurrence section needs to exist; it is allready in the physical section, but since argon is ~1% in atmosphere (which btw is completely neglected int he article) and helium is abundand in the universe they could be enough for a separate section

   Moved to a new row in the table. Gary King (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

   abundence is not a physical property. plus, abundence in the universe is an important feature for helium. Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

3. notation section feels a bit out of context
4. the appearance gallery is misleading! all gases are completely transparent. the color is given by the isonisation due to the electric current (would be interesting to put the wawelength of each of these emissions in the chemical section as a table)
5. there needs to be a section of noble gas coumpounds: mostly Xe but a bit of Rn and Kr too; use Noble gas compound
6. add some precautions maybe?

Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have heavily edited the article myself now, so I guess somebody else should do the review. Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, since it was not put on hold at WP:GAN. I will change the link so that it goes to /GA2 for any new reviews. Gary King (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)