| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on whether the article is sufficiently accessible to a non-WP:TECHNICAL reader to qualify for B-grade. It's difficult for someone steeped in the literature enough to write the article to judge, so a separate reviewer's opinion would be valuable. (I'm pretty sure the other B-grade criteria are already met, but feel free to comment on those too, if you like.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- (Created on behalf of User:97.102.205.224 by Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC))
Comments from Cryolophosaur
editOverall, I think it does a good job of being accessible to non-technical readers; as someone not particularly familiar with physics or chemistry, I felt it was a pretty easy read. A few suggestions for improvement:
- The final few sentences of the lead section (about the suitability of thorium-229m) are confusing in isolation; the lead doesn't make it clear why energy or laser excitation are relevant. The following section expands on this, but in general, lead sections should stand on their own.
- There seem to be several violations of WP:EDITORIAL throughout the article. I fixed one of these myself, but many of them I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to elegantly rephrase the sentences. Some examples: "it is also intriguing", "it is evident", and "fortunately".
- The end of the ionization section mentions "the loss is tolerable", which left me wondering what "tolerable" means in this context and should probably be expanded on.