Talk:Radium/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JackFromWisconsin (talk · contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Prior review material

[Note from BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC): this section contains the material from the original review, which was inexplicably deleted; its history is important, and is being restored here:]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'll base this initially off of the previous review, then go from there on the rest of the article. Expect comments within a week. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Keresluna: Just a friendly reminder that the review has started. Wretchskull (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

General Comments

• "Both values are encountered in sources and there is no agreement among scientists as to the true value of the melting point of radium.", I expect to see at minimum two sources here with the different melting points.
  • The ref, Kirby, H. W.; Salutsky, Murrell L. (1964). The Radiochemistry of Radium (PDF). National Academies Press., has two references that claims both melting points. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• "In 2013, it was discovered that the nucleus of radium-224 is pear-shaped. This was the first discovery of an asymmetric nucleus.", This is short and could be expanded. You could explain on the shapes of other nuclei, and expand on how and why 224 is pear shaped.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• (more to come)

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over

Regrettably, JackFromWisconsin will not be able to continue the review. The nomination status is being changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

AnonymousPurpose review

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

---

Great scientific article which covers almost all necessary information about this.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Impeccable spelling and grammar.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   With over 85+ references to all reputable and reliable sites, this article maintains a high level of verifiability, along with having exact dates and times for every single stated period, it is all around great.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This seems to cover all aspects that anyone would ever need to know about the Radium. Along with that, it seems to have exact information about temperatures and interaction periods that help everyone.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article does a good job directly working on maintaining a neutral view, and providing compelling information.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   From what I've seen there has been no issues.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   All images and media seem to be sourced from the Wikipedia Commons or a reputable site, so it's all clear.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Amazing article, covers all information possible about Radium and it's properties. AnonymousPurpose (talk · contribs) 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

New review needed

Above review voided per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_reviewer_assessment (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Darcyisverycute review

@Keresluna: Hello, I will try to take over the review from JackFromWisconsin. Not 100% sure if I should make a GA4 subpage or keep using this one, please let me know or change it if it matters. Expect the review later today/tomorrow. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Darcyisverycute, please continue to use this page for your review. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

General feedback

• A number of chemicals are missing wikilinks: 237Np, and the isotopes on the density chain description. Only need a wikilink for its first usage. I can see from the chemistry section onward they are wikilinked well.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 07:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• 9 instances of use "today". One instance of "currently". Would be more accurate to say when the practice started (eg. for today they are extracted only from ..., or if it is potentially likely to change use the "as of" template (eg. Today, 226Ra is considered to be the most toxic of the quantity radioelements, ....
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Seems fine. Content was copied in the past to a couple of other sites which earwig flagged.

Lead

• Currently: Use the "As of" template instead.
• formerly: Better to specify a date range here instead.
• in vogue: figure of speech, (I have never heard of this expression before for example) -- better to just say "fashionable"
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 07:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Summarise applications in the "modern applications" section which have overtaken historical applications, eg. industrial radiography.

Bulk properties

• congener barium -> congener, barium: Try to separate two wikilinked expressions with something not wikilinked, or else it looks like a single link without hovering/selecting it.
• A quick glance suggests that the boiling point is also a contentious value; for example this source claims a boiling point of 1140C different to what is currently in the article's infobox and description: [1] and this source suggests the boiling point is uncertain too: https://www.britannica.com/science/radium. Would be good idea to indicate this too and if possible, expand on reasons for the controversy.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Isotopes

• 237Np -> The neptunium isotope 237Np: Referring to single elements it seems more clear to name it first to unfamiliar readers.
• All other known radium isotopes: How many? Maybe better to say "The remaining x known radium isotopes..."
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

History

• It has 6 images, and on 1920x1080 these are overflowing into the "production" section. I think this is a bit too many for that section to the point of disrupting readability, given not all the images are mentioned in text. Not sure how they could better be split up without removing a couple, though. Might ask for advice about this.
• For the image File:Památník_objevu_radia_v_Jáchymově.jpg, I question if the statue is notable enough compared to say, Monument to the X-ray and Radium Martyrs of All Nations which already has an english wikipedia article. Maybe [2] could use translation too, making that page is not required to pass review though. Not sure if it is notable enough to include at all as an image.

• Their exposure to radium caused serious health effects which included sores, anemia, and bone cancer. This is because the body treats radium as calcium and deposits it in the bones, where radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells. This level of detail more likely belongs in the hazards section where it isn't covered. The hazards section already has one case study, maybe all the case studies of hazards should go in the hazards section? I think, either keep all the case studies in the hazards section, or rewrite it so it only describes health effects.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 01:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Modern applications

• Add wikilink for standard model of particle physics, discuss alternative models radium has been used to study.
• Would be good if there was a see also template for where this is discussed in more detail, if such an article exists.
• What is a king plot? Maybe this is obvious to natural scientists, but not to me. If possible an image would help.
• The isotope 223Ra (under the trade name Xofigo) was approved by... Xofigo is not 223Ra, according to citation 76 it also contains sodium chloride and other ingredients.
• bony metastases: could use wikilink to bone metastases or use WP:SS to Radium-223.
• Atomic, molecular, and optical physics research: Remove subsection title since it's the only one, and pretty wordy.

Added wikilink, there is no article where this is discussed in more detail, added image for king plot, added ref for xofigo, added wiklink, and removed subsection.Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hazards

• Are there more modern regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or similar organisations for exposure limits? If there isn't, say that too.
• was set at 0.1 micrograms of ingested radium. Can you mark a page number for this? I was not able to verify it in the first few pages of citation 82. Same for a couple other large books.
  • Found at page 238 of ref 83, and information added. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Kirby et al. citations: Is it referring to this citation?

Salutsky, M.L. & Kirby, H.W. THE RADIOCHEMISTRY OF RADIUM, report, December 1, 1964; United States, University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.

I am not exactly an expert on wikipedia citations, but shouldn't the shorthand cite be in a different section using a special template, as described here and in this article example? The House of Flowers (TV series) There are a few styles to choose from there.

On second look I now notice that the shorthand forms are from the bibliography section. Did not realise that at first. So please make a separate section and the appropriate templates for both the Kirby and Greenwood books. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation checks

• No problem: 9, 13, 27, 58
• Minor issue: 76 (see above)
• Need page number: 82, 35, 28

* Still doing this

Reconsidering feedback from previous reviews

• 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 I agree the article is very good, still a few things to change as per my feedback. As far as I can tell copyediting is fine now, as for expanding/revising sources I am still reviewing this and will edit that in along with a review result in a day or two.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Putting the review on hold for issues to be fixed. Will look at it again in a week. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Keresluna: Been a bit over a week, I can see some things have been fixed and but I'm not sure about the timeframe for the rest of my recommended changes. If you think you can make the rest of the changes within a week or so I'll keep the review on hold until then, otherwise I'll probably have to fail it. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Keresluna: I'm going to fail the review now. Feel free to open it again when you are able to spend more time on it, and I'm happy to pass when above things are fixed. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)