Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Californium/archive2

Links from references

Commenting briefly here about the "blue haze" in the references comments. My view on linking from references is that some people look at the reference section as a whole and see a "blue haze", when in fact many people don't look at article reference sections in that way. When I read articles, I tend to jump down to the footnoted references from the text as and when needed, and maybe briefly scan the list of references at the end. Thus each reference should be viewed in isolation from the other ones. It is only because they are grouped together that you get a blue haze. On the matter of blue link followed by blue link, that is a problem, I agree, but again it is more aesthetic than a case of overlinking. Some people say that if you want to follow up and read more about a journal or publisher (or author) that you don't recognise, then you can search for it, but leaving the name unlinked means that there is no way to distinguish between those journals and publishers without articles, and those with articles. Ideally, there would be a way to bring up a list of journals, authors and publishers with articles, that are used in the references, but currently there is no way to do that. Even better, IMO, would be a way to have really low-density of linking for the reader of an article, and then a way to view a sorted list of links for "further browsing". If you look at the list of outgoing links for any really well-organised and well-linked article, there is usually a logical way to sort those links, with one of the sort categories being "reference authors, publications and publishers". Anyway, some thoughts there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO resolved comments (transfer from front)

TCO opinion (FWIW, would not affect promotion)

• I think linking the publishers in your bibliography is poor form. It puts blue link next to blue link, which the MOS says not to do. Also, these are not high value links to send a reader to (we don't have to link every linkable term in an article). The wiki articles on publishers are not high value for this article, nor do they need thousands of incoming links, just from references.

• I disagree with the (PDF) given that the icon for the pdf is already generated. It's duplicative. Like adding (url) after what is obviously a hyperlink.

• For the CRC, I like to use a decimal point. So page 138 of chapter 10 is "10.138". This is not just to ward off Wiki dash nitpickers but think it really is clearer to reader who may also wonder if there is a range. Also, it better supports showing a range within the CRC (e.g. "10.138–10.140").

• P.s. Oxygen is an incredible article.TCO (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Publishers and journals de-linked and I like your idea re CRC, so I implemented it. I don't feel strongly either way on the PDF thing and won't object if somebody else removes them, but that is something that might technically be required by the MOS so I'm not touching them. Thank you for the compliment on oxygen; getting that article to FA quality.was a monumental task and a team effort. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO review. Nice work. An interesting element and a nice article. I clicked through to the Seaborg book and that was interesting as well. Guess you would be getting some nice insights for all the actinides. Comments in article order:

• Lead could still use some work. First sentence probably reads better if we make it simpler and don't cram so much into it (there are four adjectives prior to element...and I don't think you need to say actinide within that sentence). SEcond para, I think you can skip the high pressure phase (for lead). Also the sentence about he bio-issues doesn't seem to fit with other sentences. Similarly the very last sentence of the lead seems tacked on. Just would advise looking at how you group concepts and seeing if you can put more of a structure together. Perhaps using your fourth paragraph to allow a break in thought, would help.

  Good points. All implemented except the 3rd phase bit; that fact does not take up much room or disrupt flow, IMO, but it is necessary to mention Cf has three forms and the bare basics under what conditions those forms exist.--mav (reviews needed) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  Like it better!TCO (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is minor but I am more used to transuranic as a descriptor than transuranium (who uses that)?

  Well, our article exists at the spelling used and a Google search seems to show many more hits for Wikipedia's use than "transuranic" (although that might be a tail wagging the dog effect given Wikipedia mirrors). If you can point me to a usage guide saying otherwise, I'll change it and then we should discuss this at talk:transuranium element. --mav (reviews needed) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's no big deal and I honestly don't have a strong knowledge of overall usage. Just in the context of power plant operation, I am used to people talking about "transuranics" (for instance being significant shutdown decay heat producers, for older cores).

• Isotope table in box, could we list percent occurence (seems more worthy than D.E., or DP, especially as SF gets neither of those)?

  This is a synthetic element, so there is no natural abundance/occurrence to speak of. Even synthetic occurrence would be trace at best, except in very specific polluted locations, which is already covered in the article. --mav (reviews needed) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant list the percent that it does one decay path versus the other. Like P-239 is 1% SF and 99% alpha (made up numbers). It's not a big deal...just consider it as possibly higher value information for that table. That's what was done with F. Also, as a little bit of a nukey-poo, that would be my bias for more interesting info. DP can really be figured out. DE is kinda abstract. And then we don't even use the fields for all the SF paths. P.s. There is one isotope where you reverse the order of displaying SF versus alpha.TCO (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, that's kinda cool. Added. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Infobox: I don't understand the wikilinking of the numbers to magnitudes. Is this some old wiki thing like date linking?

  These numbers are so small or big that some perspective on how they compare to other things is useful. But I see the individual orders of mag articles have been redirected to less useful things. Sad. Delinked. --mav (reviews needed) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• What is a "double hexagonal close packed"? Is that just saying HCP has ABABAB repeating, thus two layers in the unit cell (a truism) or is there something fancier and doubled about this HCP versus a normal HCP? Also, if it is a fancier structure, this might be nice to have a picture of it (know someone who might draw it).

  DHCP is more-or-less less two stacked unit cells of HCP that share a common hexagonal plane. Ref note and cite added. Crystallography is fun! I think an image would be more appropriate at Close-packing of spheres. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  I should have googled. Note looks good.TCO (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Alloy-forming is a chemical property.

  Alloys are solid solutions of metals, which do not rely on chemical bounds and reactions.... --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  I donno about that, really, but it reads fine in any case. You have to let me sneak smell and taste in next to color in the future, then.  ;) TCO (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Instead of normal pressures, perhaps atmospheric pressure? Or if you stay with normal, at least make it singular?

  Changed to " under 1 standard atmosphere of pressure" --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend a para break when you get to the bulk modulus stuff. Just reads funny to have that explanation and shift in topic in the middle of the para, but will look good as a topic sentence. Maybe could clarify and develop the thought a little as well (normal metals like aluminum seemed vague). Also perhaps wikilink lanthanide (if this is first use).

  Para break added. Reads "more familiar metals like" now. Link added. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Throughout article, wikilink at first usage and then no more. It is just hard to get blue after blue. (A visual disruption, imagine if we had bold or italic so much distributed in a text.) You even have some sections where you wikilink more than once within the section.

  Seems like there should be a tool that highlights duplicate links. I'll audit the article again for that. Although sometimes a really important term should be linked in two separate sections; once on first appearance in the body of the article and maybe again in a different section where the link is much more relevant. The lede and ref notes should be considered separately in this regard, IMO. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Done, with exceptions for nuclear reactor, neutron capture, & beta decay; the second article body links of all of which are high impact, muchmoreso than the first link. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Mike was complaining about this as well. Let's find a coder and get it coded. Whenever I wax on about content being supreme, people remind me that other things are needed at wiki. Well here is a good one. I bet they just need the right outreach. I'll start a VP technical thread on it.

• Think it could be a little clearer pointed out that +3 is the predominant valence (the clicked through wikiarticle does this).

  Now reads "Its chemical properties are predicted to be similar to other primarily 3+ valence actinide elements" --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks confusing to always have the name, parens valence, parens formula, parens color. Just a lot of info glommed together. and then we list a lot of compounds very close. Is this presentation required (not just use either the formula or name, but not both?) Also the info is very listy. Wonder if showing it in a table would be easier on the reader. Then make a few high level comments on the trends or tendancies. Also (not pushing this), but this is probably an element you could consider moving all this towards the end of article (as detail) since this element is more known for nuclear properties than chemical.

  Good idea. Table created. Placement is thematic; all properties, including chemical, go under the characteristics section. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  SWEET TABLE.TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand "stable" in solution. Does that just mean "soluble"?

  Added "which means that ion cannot be reduced or oxidized" --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  I looked at the sources and did some minor tweaking so it made sense to me. Cut one sentence that was out of place in para.TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not pushing, but if you wanted another image, the metallocene structure might be interesting. I was intrigued that it had been made.

  Sadly, not much room for another image. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fascinating that they made it though. And we have an FA on rhodocene.TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not clear where the neutrons come from with these beasties. Is it after SF, the daughters have neutron emission, or the SF itself, or associated with the daughter of the alpha?

  SF. Now reads "One microgram (µg) emits 2.3 million neutrons per second, an average of 3.7 neutrons per spontaneous fission" --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Any idea how much total material has been made as of some recent date? Or yearly production perhaps (as it is a commercial mateial in some sense?)

  That would be nice to have, but none of my sources state that. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am also a little curious as to how much of it is produced (not on purpose) within conventional power reactors (as compared to ones designed for breeding transuranics).

  This was more general interest. I know Pu and Am build up in operated cores. Just wondered if Cf did significantly. Probably varies for an enriched core versus not enriched.TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• If we could research and explain a bit more why so much mass is required for the small amount of Cf, that would help the reader. Is it just for transport? And is the issue resisting bombs or sheilding or heat removal? It's just a question reader will have...

  I spent hours trying to find info on why so much mass is needed and only came up with what is already in the article. Yes, it does seem excessive but I think the reason is to make sure nothing could possibly escape. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  I felt that one!  :) TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Californium disrupts the body's ability to form red blood cells by bio-accumulating in skeletal tissue". Causation sounds strange here. It is actually the radiation that stops blood cell production, which happens after bio-accum.

  Radiation. Now reads "Radiation from californium that bio-accumulates in skeletal tissue disrupts the body's ability to form red blood cells" --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Second para under Precautions is nice content.

• Last two sentences of last para are hard to understand. Also would this damage be similar from any radioactive that had the given amount of curies, or is there somethin special about curies of Cf (after all curies is a metric of activity)? Feels a bit like some rad-con calc got lifted fromr a source and dumped here, but we have not baked it down to a so-what (or perhaps understood it ourselves).

  Agreed, removed. Simply saying that cancer results from ionizing radiation is enough. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note 4, clarify a little better that the issue was they had a compound versus the metal. (say so.)TCO (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Seaborg connection of running FAs

Mav: Not to guilt trip you. But there is a running FA on the Manhattan Project. Would think that your review of it might be good. In a way it's a historical-military topic. But it's also very much of a chemistry physics topic. So you may be able to review some aspects well. Plus you have read the Seaborg book (and he was a big part of the MP). Just a thought.TCO (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)