Talk:Radium/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 18:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I will be reviewing this article. It's quite big, so it may take a bit of time. Artem.G (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Some initial comments/questions:

• It is the sixth element in group 2 - why not 'In Alkaline earth metal group'?
  • Probably not because its wordy. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• All isotopes of radium are highly radioactive, with the most stable isotope being radium-226 link isotope to th first occurence of the word, not the second
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• When radium decays, ionizing radiation is a product, - should it be 'by-product'?
  • Yes. Changed it.Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Radium is not necessary for living organisms, Biological roles of the elements can be linked here
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• These isotopes nevertheless still have half-lives - link Half-life
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• This was the first discovery of an asymmetric nucleus. - unsourced
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• uraninite (pitchblende) pitchblende seems to be just an old name of uraninite, why should it be here?
  • Another name of uraninite, for reference. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• The common historical unit for radioactivity, the curie, is based on the radioactivity of 226Ra. - I think that some explanation should be given here; for example something like "the quantity or mass of radium emanation in equilibrium with one gram of radium (element)" (from Curie (unit))
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• A typical self-luminous watch that uses radium paint contains around 1 microgram of radium. duplicated 'radium'.
• yet had not seen fit to protect their employees. - sounds clumsy to me.
  • Fixed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Nobel-winning biologist Hermann Muller - Paul Hermann Müller
  • Already done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• After the isolation of radium by Marie and Pierre Curie from uranium ore from Joachimsthal - is it the same place as Jáchymov?
  • Yes and fixed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• For some time radium availability was low.[58] for what time? Is it important?
  • It is important as the history of availability of radium, and added exact year. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Neither of the deposits is mined for radium but the uranium content makes mining profitable. - unsourced
  • Sourced it. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• If the barium content of the uranium ore is not high enough it is easy to add some to carry the radium. These processes were applied to high grade uranium ores but may not work well with low grade ores - unsourced
  • Sourced. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• The chief radium-producing countries are Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and Russia. and have been used annually in Russia - unlink Slovakia and Russia
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Radium is also promising for a trapped ion optical clock. link to Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks, not optical clock.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• refs are formatted quite differently - for refs that are in sources, it's better to use { {sfn|}} template.
• ref 9 Salutsky, M.L. & Kirby, H.W. THE RADIOCHEMISTRY OF RADIUM, report, December 1, 1964; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1027502/: accessed March 30, 2021), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department. Page 3. - should be reformatted.
• refs 13, 64-72 should be cited properly, as {cite journal}
• but other materials such as polonium are now more common: about 1500 polonium-beryllium neutron sources, with an individual activity of 1,850 Ci (68 TBq), have been used annually in Russia.[81] - the ref is about Litvinenko, and not about neutron sources used in Russia. Also 'now' in this sentence shouldn't be used - use either year, or just remove it as too ambiguous.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Today, the isotope 226Ra is mainly used to form 227Ac by neutron irradiation in a nuclear reactor.[24] - 'Today' usage should be avoided. There are eleven 'todays' in article.
• since thorium and uranium have very long half-lives, these daughters are continually being regenerated by their decay. 'daughter' can be linked to Decay product; also it can probably be good to write what is daughter product.
  • Done. The daughters are already mentioned earlier in the section. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is quite good, and once the issues would be addressed, I would resume this review. I'm putting it on hold for 7 days, please ping me when everything is done or if you have any questions. Artem.G (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, consistent ref formatting is not a requirement of WP:GACR. See footnote 4 of that page, and also Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable. Colin M (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but as per Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Citations: "Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system." So I think my comments are still applicable. Artem.G (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but the GACR only requires compliance with 5 specific MoS pages, which do not include MOS:TEXT (see WP:GACR 1b and its attached footnote). I'm not saying this isn't good advice, but it's not a condition for GA status. Colin M (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification! You're right, though I never said that this is a requirement. I will be more clear next time, and will add "suggestions" section for such stuff. Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit distracted over the last week, but I see that Keres🌑 made some edits after the review. Though you've nominated that article, I saw that you were not the main author of it. Are you willing to work on it? The article needs copyediting, some stuff I've highlighted in my preliminary review. If you want to work on it, I'll be happy to resume this review after all the issues are solved or discussed here. If not, I think I'll fail it. Artem.G (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So it's a fail for now. Keres🌑, if you want to bring the article to GA, I think that History, Production, and Modern applications needs copyediting and revision of sources used. The article is not bad, but it's a bit neglected and needs some attention. If it would be done, I think it would pass next review. Artem.G (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)