Wikipedia:Peer review/Noble gas/archive2

Noble gas edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive some feedback on how to improve it.

Thanks, Gary King (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Two facts that are missing from the article: 1) the origin of terrestrial helium--why it is obtained from the ground and not from the air?; 2) the role of radon as a source of natural radiation exposure and its possible risks.
I think there is some repetition about the octet rule/group 0/unreactivity. For example, the Compounds section says "Lack of reactivity among the noble gases is caused by a full valence shell, resulting in little tendency to gain or lose electrons", which is maybe the third or fourth time such a statement is made in one form or another.
The history section tends to jump back and forth in time. Perhaps a more chronological presentation would be clearer.
The history section almost implies that Bohr suggested the octet rule, which I'm not sure is accurate. Perhaps some mention of Lewis and Langmuir would be helpful.
The statement that "In 1962, an experiment successfully removed electrons from xenon, a noble gas, using the chemical process of oxidation" is not entirely accurate. First, because the bond is covalent and one is not really removing an electron, except according to the formal definition of the oxidation state. And second, because to put it into perspective, electrons had been removed much earlier using what we could call "the physical process of ionization". The way the statement is now might suggest that oxidation was the first method ever to remove an electron from xenon. Which reminds me that I think the ionization potentials and electron affinities (or lack thereof) of the noble gases should be mentioned somewhere in the article.
Perhaps a good proofreading would be helpful, but it's probably better to wait until the content is a bit more settled. User:Freestyle-69 has volunteered! ;-)

--Itub (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the superfluidity of helium should be mentioned somewhere. --Itub (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these suggestions might be better placed in their respective articles. I've received a few suggestions regarding some specifics of each element, and I don't think all of them should be included. I'll see what I can do, though. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy comments edit

The table on the top right is a bit confusing... putting a border between "group" and "period" (thus, giving the entire table borders) would clarify things a bit.

I am not sure how to put an oblique bar between group and period. Any suggestion how to solve this? Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The respective melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together; consequently, only a small temperature range exists for each to be in a liquid state." - rather than the "consequently..." bit which is a given, can you say why this is?

ha? I am not sure why, but I know that hydrogen (6 K), nitrogen (11 K difference) are a bit similar, but fluorine and oxygen have a muchhigher difference. Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bobrow (5 December 2007), CliffsAP Chemistry, CliffsNotes, ISBN 047013500X." - Who's Bobrow?

Done

"and in 1898 he discovered the elements krypton, neon, and xenon, and named them after the Greek words ???pt?? (kryptos, hidden), ???? (neos, new), and ????? (xenos, stranger)." - would read better with less "and"s.

Done

"a reaction between fluorine and argon, one of the noble gases, but failed." - rather than stating that argon is noble (already stated numerous times), you might want to say what's special about flourine (high reactivity).

Done

"The noble gases have very weak interatomic force, and consequently they have very low melting and boiling points" - remove the "they"?

Done

"Radon is formed as a radioactive gas along with helium as radium decays. Radon has a half-life of 3.8 days and decays to form helium and heavy metals, typically lead" - a wlink to an article on radioactive decay would be good here.

Done

"The noble gas atoms increase in atomic radius from one period to the next due to the increasing number of electrons." - I'm going to look noobish if wrong, but isn't this trend the same for every group? If so you don't really need to say it (the atomic radius article should cover it, but this review was done offline, so yeah).

It is a general rule, but in some groups there are exceptions (or at least near-exceptions), due to the lanthanide contraction. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Very little is known about the properties of the most recent member of group 18, ununoctium (Uuo)." - this has already been said in other sections...
"In 1962, an experiment successfully removed electrons from xenon using the chemical process of oxidation." - this can confuse a reader as (at its simplest) oxidation just means it's lost lost electrons. How did they oxidise it? What was the reducing agent?

The reducing agent was xenon, because it is the substance that was oxidized. But I agree that this sentence needs some work. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"bonded to an electronegative atom of fluorine or oxygen" - reader: "what does electronegative mean???"

Done

"As of 2007, almost 100" - more recent figures?

That's the best I can find. It's not like there is a monthly review with the latest count of noble gas compounds! One every few years is the rule, and 2007 seems more than recent enough for me. If you can find more recent data, I'd certainly add it to the article. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - just procedurally bringing this up to make sure you've checked! giggy _(:O) 10:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"and HArF is the only confirmed compound of argon" - so far you've used the practice of wlinking the full name and putting the shortened version in brackets... be consistent.

Done

"An endohedral fullerene compound containing a noble gas" - move this image down so the top of it is alongside its paragraph.

Done

"In 1993, it was discovered that when C60" - what's C60?

Done

"The abundance of the noble gases in the universe decrease as their atomic numbers increase." - should decrease be plural?

Right, there's a problem with subject-verb agreement there. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

It might just be me (wouldn't be surprised!) but it's a bit odd that this article talks purely in terms of electron shells and stuff and doesn't mention probability distribution, Shroedinger model style. Am I making any sense? Am I missing something? Should I do more chemistry study instead of reviewing these articles? :-) (Incidentally, if I ace any question relating to noble gases as a result of reviewing this article, I promise to get another article relating to my education featured.)

giggy _(:O) 08:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noble gas chemistry is normally explained in terms of electron configurations (shells and such). While you can certainly use Schrodinger's equation to get quantitative information such as the energy and electron density, I don't think it results in much qualitative insight worth mentioning in the article. However, one thing worth mentioning is that the electron density distribution noble gas atoms is perfectly spherical (the planetary picture we have in the article can be misleading in that sense). Also, the explanation of bonding in noble gas compounds based on molecular orbitals (the 3-center-4-electron bonding stuff) is based on Schrodinger's equation, although it doesn't say so. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. I do suggest you mention the electron distribution density thing, it isn't currently as clear as it could be. And no harm in mentioning Schrodinger specifically when talking about the 3-center-4-electron bonding stuff. giggy _(:O) 09:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last question, please keep reviewing these articles! All your comments have been helpful. It is very useful to know which parts are not clear, which should be wikilinked, etc., as well as any errors and redundancies you can find. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! giggy _(:O) 09:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten everything now. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]