Talk:Caesium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments to follow soonish. I don't anticipate many problems, but there are always a few nitpicks - for instance, a couple of the refs are bare doi numbers, and need the rest of the journal details added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of those, but I was waiting for DOI bot to be restarted. Nergaal (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that it was down Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• File:Moscow dirty bomb.jpg is a copyright image with no fair use justification for this article. I don't see how it can be acceptable in this article

removed. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

*Leach, Sterilization and Amalgamation (redirect from Amalgamate) are dabs. Links all live

fixed. Nergaal (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I always though caesium was the BE spelling, but you use color and gray. Can you clarify if I'm wrong, or make consistent if necessary
• The reaction with water is explosive even at temperatures as low as −116 °C. I can't quite visualise this - at that temperature both would be hard solids, and the ice presumably would have no damp surface to start the reaction. Have I missed something

That is what the sources say. Solid metal in contact with ice produces a small amount of hydrogen, which ignites, thus melting locally both of them, which further increases the rate of hydrogen formation. Nergaal (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• caesium results in numerous compounds with oxygen. The caesium oxide (Cs₂O)... this gives the impression that Cs₂O is the normal oxide. I thought that the superoxide was formed when caesium burned in oxygen? Not sure why "The" is needed

2:1 is the ration in a normal oxide, so the I thought fits. Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Although for K, Rb and Cs, the superoxides KsO₂, RbO₂, and CsO₂ are the oxides formed by the direct reaction of O₂ with the respective alkali metal. For most of group one the peroxide is the standard product, and i would have thought should be mentioned first?

• why is Cs₂O in the list of suboxides?

removed. Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• half-lives of under several minutes. reads oddly

  Reworded to "they all have half-lives of a few minutes or less" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• 137Cs was released into the atmosphere where it is not absorbed readily into solution ... Once 137Cs enters the ground water Is this contradictory?

  I don't think so. A substance can enter and be transported by moving water without being absorbed into solution, right? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• In "Electric power and electronics" I would have thought some of the redlinks could be reconfigured to real articles?

  Done --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Caesium compounds in EL, perhaps more consistent to have as a link under the compounds subheading (as with isotopes)

  Done --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 2 has two "but"s, ref 32 lacks a publisher. Several refs have bare urls, can they perhaps be formatted more tastefully as [url title]?

Cleaned up most of them. All of them should be completely fixed once I get DOI bot to run the article. Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all on a first read, I fixed a couple of trivial typos Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by stone

• The reference on LUU-19 flare does not mention caesium. Is there another credible source.
• "Major uses of radioisotopes". National Safety Council. 2003. Retrieved 2003-06-29. is dead and 7years old.
• Cabot Specialty Fluids, 2003, Formate fluid technology, accessed February 11, 2003 at URL http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/drilling/cabot is also dead

--Stone (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaced both of the dead ones. Nergaal (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More for the FAC than for GAN: books need page numbers

Compounds Wells

Chemical and medical Greenwood, N.N.; Earnshaw, A.

Precautions Smith, Nicholas A.

adding more refs to the isotopes section. Nergaal (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Remaining issues

• The oxides still need clarifying as indicated above. The text does not make it clear that when you burn Cs (or Rb or K) the normal product is the superoxide

"Although for K, Rb and Cs, the superoxides KsO₂, RbO₂, and CsO₂ are the oxides formed by the direct reaction of O₂ with the respective alkali metal. For most of group one the peroxide is the standard product, and i would have thought should be mentioned first?"

I am a a bit weary of putting in such a statement without a clear reference. While of what I know, K and I think Rb also do generate the superoxide, in the Cs case I believe that there is no standard product obtained. I am tempted to believe that Cs + O2 gives a mixture of oxides, probably varying with pressure and stirring. I will see if I can find a textbook reference about this. Nergaal (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have a reference, but it's an old textbook, so I've refrained from adding it. If you don't find anything from the last 40 years, I'll sort it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For this sort of basic reactions old references are most likely fine since they have probably been discovered a long time ago. You should go ahead and add it. Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• refs 38 and 40 have bare urls which will not be fixed by the bot

  fixed refs. converted to cite web template--Stone (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

*with regard to the doi bot, what do you want to do? I have no idea when it will be back up, and this review has to close at some stage. Perhaps you might have to do it manually?

• was done already yesterday. converted to cite journal.--Stone (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I made this change, please adjust if you wish. Now, on with the main business Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: