User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Lanthanum-138)
Jump to: navigation, search
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I may not watch your talk page and I will likely unintentionally IGNORE your reply if you do not ping me in it, use Template:Talkback, or copy it to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.
I strongly oppose the Foundation's actions with regards to MediaViewer and superprotect. If you do too, please sign the petition at m:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

I archive resolved material or bot messages: each archive contains exactly fifty sections (save the most recent one, which of course can contain less until it fills up). Unresolved material is archived when it is over a month old. When moved to the archives, sections are kept in chronological order (so if an early thread is still active and generating replies this page might swell larger than usual.)

I know that the following users watch my talk page, so I will not use {{talkback}} on them. If you watch my talk page, feel free to add yourself to this list.

Small neutrality check[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask you to see if a para from an article on a Russain politician is neutral. Neutrality is not really an issue when you're writing about something like elements; but when it comes to people, things are different. Actually, I'd like to eventually ask you to help me check the article, whether it is neutral or not (but not now, since even just adding raw material is not over, or even close to that); could you help me with that? (In general, I want to do the whole check later, but that para just bugs me.)

Here is the para (second in the Election results subsection if you need context):

Many experts claimed the election had been fair, the number of irregularities was much lower than those of other elections held within the country, and the irregularities had had little affect on the result.[102][103] However, according to Andrei Buzin, co-chairman of the GOLOS Association, State Departments of Social Security added people who did not originally wanted to vote to the list of those who would vote at home, with the number of such voters being 4.5% of those who voted, and added this did cause questions if Sobyanin would score 50% if this did not take place.[103] Dmitry Oreshkin, leader of the "People's election commission" project (who did a separate counting based on the data from election observers; their result for Sobyanin was 49.7%), said now that the runoff election was only 1.5% away, all details would be looked at very closely, and added it was impossible to prove "anything" juridically.[104]

Also, since I came here: After I am done with adding content to the article (which will require some time, because when it comes to people, you have to do more research, I think), when it comes to polishing it, I may, if circumstances permit this, write an element article, or polish one. In particular, lead was on my mind; it is a GA we wrote. The GA reviewer said it was close to a FA (however, to be fair, I also remember being skeptical to that assertion, but we would check it anew anyway); so, would you be interested in FAing it, or a task like that? So, again, not now, and not within a month or two (or three, or even more, depending on whether I will be available for that or not)--R8R (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing so many scientific articles that I've gotten a little out of touch with this sort of thing...
At first glance, though, you've got over three times as much material on the "the irregularities may be significant" side than on the "they had little effect" side. The attribution for the "they're significant" side is solid. But perhaps it would help to state who the experts are who are claiming the election had been fair? That's the biggest thing I can see about this paragraph.
I'm a bit skeptical that Pb is that close to being an FA too, but it's a really important element, so I'm naturally very interested in doing a task like that! Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem :)
Yeah, I was afraid it might look like that. My plan was, get a sentence for those who support the attribution "the election was fair," get a countering sentence, and get a sentence saying "things are complicated"; since it didn't look like that to you, I'll have to change that somehow. Thanks!
That's great to know :) hopefully, it won't take too much time to get contents for my current target.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


@Double sharp Why did you delete my photo of francium? Yours Truly (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox francium, where I gave my rationale. Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)