Talk:Rutherfordium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

While this article contains a wealth of information, I fear it may be too technical for most readers. Below, I have included a few areas could use improvement:

• The lead section is too short and does not adequately summarize the article's content. I would like to see information about why the atom was named after Rutherford, and why this atom's discovery is important. Please see WP:lead for more suggestions on how to improve this section.

Expanded the lead section. And will add one or two sentences soon. --Stone (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Rutherford and why it was important.--Stone (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Are all the items under the subsection "Nucleosynthesis" necessary? I would rather read a paragraph that summarizes the important reactions than to read the list of all of them.

I asked the creator of the text if we can move it to the isotops of Rutherfordium where already a copy exists. --Stone (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is the "Extrapolated properties" section necessary? The section is unreferenced, and I don't know how relevant it is for such an unstable element.

Most of the properties are not extrapolated. I changed the wording for those and tried to get ride of the unreferenced claims.--Stone (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A technical note:

• In the section "Gas phase", the last sentence of the first paragraph seems wrong. Is the word "from" supposed to be "form"?

Right and gone --Stone (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• The figure within "Hot fusion" section has a "citation needed" tag on it.

I do not have the time right now to read through all of it, but I thought I would make you aware of these issues needing to be addressed in the mean time. --Tea with toast (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary review

I have finished my initial review of the page, and have found a few more issues needing to be addressed in addition to those listed above:

• The lead section needs expansion. In addition to those items mentioned in the preceding section, this article should provide some content that the causal reader can appreciate. As it stands, the article is too technical for most readers. Consider what an entry level college student would want to know about this topic.

• Please include an introductory paragraph about nucleosynthesis and the distinction between hot fusion and cold fusion before delving into the list of all the experiments. The subsequent list should also be reduced to include only those most important.

Copied an existing introduction an I will reduce the section to the necessary size.--Stone (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• The subsections "Chemical yields of isotopes" and "Extrapolated properties" need to be sourced.

I will allow 1 week for changes to be made to this article and will give my final review at that time. --Tea with toast (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Final review

I am glad to see the many improvements that have been made to this article thus far. I appreciate the work that has been done, especially on the lead section. However, it has been more than 1 week since I gave my notice, and the "Chemical yields of isotopes" section remains unsourced. I am sorry to deny the article GA status for that reason. I hope you will continue to improve this article so that I may be re-nominated in the future. Best of luck. --Tea with toast (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)