Wikipedia:Peer review/Radon/archive1

Radon edit

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of making it a GA. The only problem for it to become a GA is that its compounds section is non-existent. Is there anything else I am missing? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only objection in the last GA nomination was about references and reliability. While there has been a lot of improvement in terms of inline citations, the applications section doesn't have any references yet. Especially some of the more far-fetched ideas such as the "radon spas" would definitely need a citation IMO. --Itub (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:The History section is almost devoid of references as well.~~ --Itub (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reaper X

It looks like this article is on its way. But here are some points that may help.

For general GA requirements, see WP:GA?.
Make sure that all your inline citations are in proper format. For help with this using templates (which I find extremely useful), see WP:CITET.
Either expand the compounds section, or merge it with another section.
I'll echo Itub and say you definitely need some more references. Anything with a ^{[citation needed]} tag should be taken care of ASAP.
Use Xenon as a model! It's a featured article, and it should definitely give you an idea of what this article should/can look like.
~~Find a few free images to integrate into the article. Found one for you: Image:Electron shell 086 Radon.svg.~~

Besides that, I wish you luck. Drop me a line on my talk page if you have any more questions. Cheers. -- Reaper X 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think this is ready for GA yet and even don't think this should be A-class. It is simply not comprehensive enough given the element's importance.~~ Xenon is about as if not less important and interesting, ~~but its article is twice as long. The compounds section is a stub section and many other subsections have single paragraph. A general and extensive expansion is in order.~~ I'll add it to my list but I'm a bit burnt out on chemistry right now; I'll first have to put a geology or National Park article through FAC before I start to expand this article. --mav (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has since been significantly expanded and is getting real close. In fact, I was planning on expanding this article tonight but almost everything I wanted it add is already there in some form (and cited). The major issue I saw is that the ==Precautions== is too long and repeats itself in several places. For example, radon's role in causing lung cancer is mentioned throughout the section and pretty much the same thing is said in a few different locations (2nd leading cause and indoor air pollutant come to mind, not to mention the fact that the U.S. EPA is fully linked a few times and its standards for exposure are repeated at least twice). This needs to be brought together and condensed. I suggest two subjections; ===Exposure=== and ===Health effects===. Neither subsection should be more than 3-4 paragraphs long. Do that and address the points brought by others in the PR and I think this article will go through GAN easily. After that, if you standardize the referencing and perform a real good copyedit, then I think this would also pass FAC. Oh, and I already think this article now merits its A-class status. --mav (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the lung cancer theme is repeated in too many places. Wherever it ends up, it needs to be stated more precisely and put into perspective. I went and read the reference for the statement that it is the second cause of lung cancer (PMID 11762803), and found a few surprises: 1) the paper only talks about the UK, but exposure to residential radon varies by orders of magnitude from country to country (besides the geographic variation in radon production, in warmer climates houses tend to be more ventilated and there is less radon accumulation). 2) only 1% of lung cancer deaths were attributed to radon alone, compared to 5.5% radon+smoking and 83.9% to smoking alone. The remaining 9.6% is from other causes. So while it is true that it is the second cause after smoking in the UK, it is a very distant second. This should be stated quantitatively so that it doesn't sound more dangerous than it is. I already did this at one place in the article. --Itub (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 16:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks by RJH edit

I agree with Mav that this article needs more work and expansion to be GA level. Here are a few observations:

The article needs many more in-line citations, especially when opinions are expressed ("...shocked to find...", "...prompting local fears...", &c.) It could also use a couple more illustrations.
The lead section is too brief. It doesn't cover the history or the applications sections. Also, I think it would be more scientific to say "densest" rather than "heaviest".
Vague quantities should be clarified. ("...high levels of exposure..." and "...normally have low rates of lung cancer.")
~~What is the origin of the name "Radon"? The History section does a better job of explaning the name "Niton".~~

It says "named after radium", and originally called radium emanation. I think the name is reasonably clear, considering that other parts of the article show how the gas is in fact produced from the alpha decay of radium. But perhaps it could be made more explicit.
- Looks like an explanation was added since my comment. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "brilliant phosphorescence" mean? Does it literally glow? I'd assume it might from the radioactivity, but perhaps that could be explained?
In the "Characteristics" section, I would expect to find information on the density (both liquid and gas).[1] It should also mention that the gas is odorless and tasteless.
In the second paragraph of "Characteristics", what is the "saturated zone of a soil"? Is this in reference to water saturation?
The article should describe how radon is extracted from the atmosphere, especially since it is chemically inert.

I doubt it can be extracted from the atmosphere, as it is so unstable that it only exists in the tiniest of amounts. The real question for me is how did Ramsay and Whytlaw-Gray manage to measure its density. --Itub (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, bad assumption on my part then. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph that begins "The European Union recommends..." uses the units Bq/m³ and pCi/L. The first occurance of these units is unlinked. Also it would be helpful if Bq or pCi were explained in terms to which an average reader could relate.
The "Testing and mitigation" section does not explain how Radon is detected. Only that kits exist. How does the radon test kit collector absorb Radon? How did the Apollo 15 and Lunar Prospector detect radon (as opposed to some other radioactive element)? It would be helpful if these were explained.

According to [2], radon is collected using charcoal. I don't know about Apollo 15, but I imagine that they assumed it would be radon because a gas would be the most likely source at 110 km over the moon, and no other gases emit alpha particles as far as I know. --Itub (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]