Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Californium/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [1].

Californium edit

Nominator(s): mav (reviews needed) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been some time since the last FAC. Since then the article has been promoted to PR and the remaining issues left at FAC where copied to the article's talk page and addressed there. What else is needed for this article to be FA quality? mav (reviews needed) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ As far as I can see, not a great deal amiss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The +4 oxidation state creates strong oxidizing agents and +2 state creates strong reducing agents — do you mean "is" rather than "create"? If not, I don't understand the sentence.
- A the got dropped somehow. Now reads "The +4 oxidation state creates strong oxidizing agents and the +2 state creates strong reducing agents --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blue-linking publishers and journals seems like overlinking to me; there's even less point to red-linking publishers.
- That was done specifically in reference to a request during the last FAC, that linking or not linking should be consistent. It also helps readers evaluate the veracity of the source. But I'm not too attached to the links. If you feel strongly they should go, then I'll remove them; it is just a lot of work for something that I don't feel is too important either way. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Weeks ref seems to be both a book and a journal, please clarify or correct
- It is a book published by a journal b/c the chapters in the book started as journal articles. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really don't like the blue haze, but it's not grounds for withholding support for an article which is otherwise comprehensive and strikes a fine balance between technical content and readability. A very good read. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! I removed the publisher and journal links; it didn't take that long and I've never much cared for them. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, pending clarification on the alloys. I enjoyed the read earlier when I first reviewed (which I found while working on my own FAC).

"It forms alloys with lanthanide metals." - that seems like a very short idea that could be expanded. Is it with all lanthanides? Some? Any more likely than others?
I'll have to get back to you on that one. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source just says that they exist but are not well-characterized; no examples are given. I added a note about the lack of info in this area and will take another look at my other references to see if they say anything. --mav (reviews needed) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you split up the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Physical properties"? I got a little tripped up when I read "that exists below 900 °C with a density of 15.10 g/cm3 and a face-centered cubic form..."
No problem. Split. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The resistance to uniform pressure, called the bulk modulus, of californium is 50 ± 5 GPa, which is similar to trivalent lanthanide metals but smaller than more familiar metals, such as aluminium (70 GPa)." - that reads poorly, particularly beginning the clause with "of californium is..."
Sentence broken-up now between the note about what bulk modulus is and the info about Cf.[2] --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"119 µg" - I don't see that symbol anywhere else in the article. I know what it stands for, but you might want to clarify somewhere else.~~
Unit linked. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little quibble, but units that are used once generally shouldn't be abbreviated, per MOS. I'll let someone complain about that, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - good point. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"In 1982, most californium-252 was used in reactor start-up" - I was confused what that meant at first, but after reading it several times I understood it. You might want to make it clearer.~~
Sentence copyedited to hopefully make it more clear. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for commenting. I'm at work right now, but will start to address each point after I get home. --mav (reviews needed) 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Several reference books still say that californium metal has not been prepared." - this is probably subject-specific knowledge, but a ref or two would be helpful
That was a hell of a fact to confirm before due to competing sources. The trouble though, is that I could not find a single source that mentioned the confusion; just different sources either talking about Cf metal or saying Cf metal had not been prepared. For now, I have removed the sentence since it could be seen as a synthesis violation. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ref 8: need dash in page range~~
That is not a page range, it is a page number. The CRC handbook uses a section-page page numbering scheme. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, never mind then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 46: publisher? Also, while you are not required to include "(PDF)", other PDF refs do - be consistent
Publisher and format added. All other PDFs now have formats too. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16: why the different author name order here?
An oversight. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 28: page(s)?
Added. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In..."). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I used the cite book template. Could you point out an example of inconsistent use? --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In Clifford A. Hampel" vs "In Geller, Elizabeth". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Stone fixed that and I just confirmed there were no other cases. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Infobox needs sources, in particular for the nuclear data.
There is a link to Chemical elements data references under the "r" on the infobox, but I agree that is not a standard way to list references and is likely suboptimal in an absolute sense. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do that and will hopefully start to experiment soon. The trouble comes when whatever is decided needs to be implemented on 120+ articles. --mav (reviews needed) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Testing process started at User:Mav/Sandbox, --mav (reviews needed)

What is the "quickly deteriorating" at 300 deg C? Is this a chemical reaction? If physical, doesn't make sense wrt structure discussion.
The metal vaporizes. Text updated. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck does it vaporize at 300 deg and then have a structure at 1 ATM above 900 deg C?TCO (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vacuum, now mentioned. --mav (reviews needed) 04:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand the last sentence about oxidizing and reducing properties. Is strong really proper description here? And if +2 is strong, then zero would be even stronger, no? Also, I am a little worried the reference will be definitional of the concept here, rather than explain the redox of this metal. (Could not see the page on Google books though.)
Now reads "Compounds in the +4 oxidation state are strong oxidizing agents and those in the +2 state are strong reducing agents". Source does not explain why though. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remain concerned on that source. Does it really discuss redox chemistry of Cf specifically?

The image in production is a beautiful image and I like how you have centered it. License permission seems a little unclear (was the uploader really the creator in 1975 of that drawing)? Also, maybe have the Image Improvement help desk give it a little brushup to make it sharper.
Simple presentation of factual data in a table or chart is not eligible for copyright, IIRC. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should maybe get the description to expalain that then. FS may have an insight also.TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I'm at work right now, but will start to address your points after I get home. --mav (reviews needed) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got a late start, but will do more during the weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm a layman in the subject. Here are my impressions after a first read.

does 'bombarding' need to be linked?
Not sure to what; seems to be clear from context. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'and is one of the highest atomic mass elements' -> can you be more specific, as in the first part of the sentence
I would love to, but that is what the source says. Sentence commented out until a better source is found that does not use weasel words. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
does 'crystalline form' need to be linked?
Yep. Now linked to Crystal structure. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'The most stable of californium's twenty isotopes' -> isn't there theoretically more than 20 isotopes?
We only know what we know; "known" added as modifier. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Californium is one of the few transuranium elements' -> a little vague
In what way? --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Unlike many other elements heavier than plutonium' -> a little vague
Sentence removed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'900 ±30' but '50 ± 5 GPa' -> be consistent with spacing
Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'with an estimated melting point of 900 ±30 °C' -> 'estimated' seems redundant here, considering that there are error bounds
Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of 'Physical properties' is rather technical. I didn't understand much on first read.
Copyedited. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'as a fluoride, oxalate or hydroxide' -> it seems the Oxford comma is in use in the article, missing here
Added. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'If problems of availability of the element could be overcome' -> I find the phrasing a little awkward
Changed to "If more of the element were available for testing" --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'and the majority of these have half-lives shorter than 20 minutes' -> again, please be more specific
In what way? This article is not the place to list the half lives of each isotope; that is what isotopes of californium is for.. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'due to its habit' do atoms have 'habits'?
Changed to "tendency" --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'The discoverers named the new element for California and the University of California' -> the University is already linked just above
Not the same thing; Berkeley is one campus of the University of California. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Californium-249 to 252' -> should it be '-252'?
Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'[33] [note 5]' -> there seems to be an extra space
Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'includes several isotopes of plutonium, americium, curium, and berkelium and the californium isotopes 249 to 253' -> is there one too many 'and'?
Extra "and" removed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the rest later. 131.111.216.60 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on my concerns from the previous FAC being addressed on the talk page before this re-nomination. Will also try and follow this review and comment where needed to see if my support is still justified (which I'm sure it will be). I will comment briefly on the 'blue haze' issue in the references on this FAC talk page, if anyone else wants to discuss that there (or indeed take that discussion somewhere more relevant). Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Support—I did perform a PR on this article and my concerns there were satisfied. Another read through revealed a few issues that should be easy to address:

Many of the element articles list a Mohs hardness. Any chance the Mohs hardness of Californium can be dug up (particularly since the article says it can be "easily cut by a razor")?
I'm confused about the fact that the article says Californium has a melting point of 900 °C but it vaporizes above 300 °C. Is this an error?
Note #2 that begins, "The three lower mass transplutonium elements...", uses spaced em-dashes, which conflicts with MOS:EMDASH. Please use either unspaced em-dashes or a spaced en-dashes. The sentence "...first californium compounds - californium trichloride..." should also be modified to follow this usage. (I.e. replace the ordinary dash.)
I had no success trying to follow the citation for the 1960 production of californium compounds. Please consider inserting the following reference:
"Submicrogram Chemistry Gives Cf Compounds". Chemical & Engineering News. 38 (52): 38–39. December 26, 1960. doi:10.1021/cen-v038n052.p038.

Otherwise the article seems to be in good condition. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and comments! Hardness added, mentioned that Cf metal vaporizing requires a vacuum, and removed spaces from em dashes. As for the compounds cite; I don't have access to either source, but yours looks better, so by all means, add it if you have confirmed it verifies the text. --mav (reviews needed) 04:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An outstanding article! I looked at it between two FACs, to find only very minor things, listed at article's talk. Now, I see one more thing:

Why U.S. level 1 subdivisions (states) are given for U.S. places while those of Russia aren't? I'd understand if it was Andorra or something like that, but Russia is huge, too... even huger than U.S... than anything else. (If it was Germany, the question would still be. Not Poland — it's quite centralized, but Russia isn't (that) centralized, at least on the paper)

Support. Anyway, it's very minor. Nothing important to fix for me, support.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Yeah, that was a bit US-centric and unneeded, so removed mention of TN. --mav (reviews needed) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with reservation. There's a small discrepancy about the initial price of californium. I've documented it on the talk page. Essentially the current source says Californium first went on sale in the 1970s for $10 per microgram, but multiple newspaper sources report that it went on sale in 1968 for $100 per tenth of a microgram. It's a small discrepancy, but should probably get cleared up. Other than that, it's looking good. Sir Nils (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and edits! I removed the impression that it first went on sale in the early 1970s at that price and added the most recent RS-documented price, from 1999, in the ref note. Non-RS sources do indicate a price of $68 per microgram in the mid to late 2000s but I could not verify that. More explanation on the Cf talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 03:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new feedback! I will address all remaining issues this weekend. The infobox is now fully cited where needed but some cites are hidden for presentation purposes that are being worked on and a few more properties need to be added. --mav (reviews needed) 12:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Really a little gem of an article in content and prose. Made me interested in what I thought would be a boring, scientific curiosity. Gave it a pretty close read and had a fair amount of comments, now on talk. Looked at the section in G&E Chemistry of the Elements (hard copy) and we cover this topic properly in content and no prose copyvios (in that source.) My big concern on citations for the properties was adressed. There are a couple other nits left. Would advise the author to address, but does not hold up my support. Kudos, mav! TCO (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.