Wikipedia:Peer review/Protactinium/archive1

Protactinium

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article has the potential to become a Featured Article. It has a great amount of information, and I think this would be extremely informative to everyone.

Thanks, AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got the wrong article. This one is rated start-class. Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rating was updated to a B-class yesterday.—RJH (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—unfortunately, after a read through I have to say that this article appears replete with jargon and may be unhelpful to many lay readers. It could do with clearer explanations, which would add somewhat to the article length but make it more approachable. Here's a few specifics:

To me, the first paragraph of the text reads as though it would be completely obtuse to a lay reader. For example, it does not explain what it means to be "between" two other elements, or be positioned below. It needs to explain "actinide element group" and how is it relevant. The term "periodic table" is only mentioned in sentence three. Please re-write the paragraph so that the meaning would be clear to somebody relatively unfamiliar with chemistry.
The following are vague: "intensely radioactive"; "For a long time..."; "...that is preserved for some time in air". More specific data or comparisons would be useful.
The last 3-4 sentences of the paragraph that begins "In 1900, William Crookes" are commendable but completely off topic.
"...is currently providing..." needs a specific year.
"...occurring in two different energy states." What does this even mean?
The context of "...even the water present in the same sample of soil" is somewhat unclear.
"...via (n,2n) reactions..." is unclear.
"It is chosen..." is ambiguous. Is "it" Bismuth or Lithium?
The nuclear reaction in the Preparation section could use some clarification with words to explain the neutron and negative beta symbols to the reader.
Much of the last paragraph of "Physical and chemical properties" is pure jargon.
Jargon needing links or clarification: "lattice constants", "space group number", "non-stoichiometric", "orthorhombic symmetry", "poor metals", "monoclinic", "mixed binary oxides", "octahedrally coordinated", "monoclinic symmetry", "hydrolyze" and "kinetics".
"...most remarkable is..." Why is this remarkable?
The references are inconsistently formatted. Some are "last name, first name", others are "first name last name". Several book references lack page numbers (Hammond; Myasoedov et al.; Nukleare Sprengkörper; Palshin et al.).
A few more illustrations of Proactinium and its compounds wouldn't hurt.

I hope this helps a little. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]