Talk:Actinide/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the long delay. Two previous reviews have overrun and I've not been editing on wikipedia very much this month, but I've now started on this one. Pyrotec (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

Having quickly skimmed through the article my initial thoughts were that this was a comprehensive article of at least GA-status, but its not quite that simple.

The article is certainly GA-standard in parts, but if suffers from WP:Overlinking, for instance in the WP:Lead every occurrence of Lawrencium is wikilinked - twice, as is plutonium - twice; and similar Overlinking apperars in some other sections. There are also several comments an/or statements in the article that are are unreferenced. However, having recorded these "problems", they are relatively minor in respect of the article as a whole. Pyrotec (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will just be highlighting problems, do if I don't have much to say about a particular section, then its probably already at GA-standard, but I will provide any overall summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Synthesis -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC) - This section is a bit of a mess, and it seems to start with the section title, which is a misnomer. The section seems to split into two main halves: synthesis and discovery/isolation (or the otherway round), so perhaps the title should be expanded to cover the scope of this section, e.g. Discover and synthesis, or Discovery, isolation and synthesis.
• The structure of the first four paragraphs is also confusing:

• The first paragraph is possibly an overview, it compares the Actinides with the Lanthanides, mentions the two overlapping groups: transuranium elements, which follow uranium in the periodic table—and transplutonium elements, but these are the same article (one is a redirect); and it then discussed "abundances".
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC) - A citation or citations aught to be provided for the "abundances".
• Its not made clear (and the wikilinks don't help) what the significance of the transuranium elements and the transplutonium elements are; which elements are transuranium and which are transuranium (but we could probably guess); and, why this is noteworthy.
• The next two paragraphs discusses transplutonium elements - which seems to be synthesis and the final paragraph discusses transuranium elements - which seems to be discovery.
• It not clear why the two paragraphs on the transplutonium element come before the transuranium elements, since they seem to be discussed in reverse order of discovery and in reverse order of period table; and in reversed order to the two sub-sections that follow.

• I fixed this myself. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The first subsection, From actinium to neptunium, is mostly in period table order (and/or date of discovery - I'm happy with the order) and is about discovery and isolation; and the second subsection Plutonium and above is about synthesis. A logical partition, and a logical way of discussing the Actinides.

....stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC) - The second and third paragraphs are cited with a single reference, a book, but no page numbers are given in the references.
• The first sentence of the fourth paragraph has two references, both in Russian for the work (according to wikipedia) of an Anglo-American scientist carried out in the early 1930s. I find it supprising that no English-language references are given. The rest of the paragraph is unreferenced.

The nominator is on wikibreak. I've reduced overlinking, provided page numbers for books, changed name for the synthesis section, and updated references there. I don't see much significance in transuranium/transplutonium terms, but they are used on wikipedia and in literature and might be worth repeating in an overview article like this one. Could well be removed too. Materialscientist (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and for your help with the "corrections". I'd noticed that the article's nominator had not done any editing for about ten days and that no corrective work had been done, but had not realised that it was a wikibreak, so I just switched my attention to other reviews. I will continue this review with slightly more vigour. Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• • From actinium to neptunium -

• Looks OK.

• • Plutonium and above -

• Looks OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Isotopes & Distribution in nature -

• These two sections look OK.

• Extraction -

• The second and third paragraphs could do with a clean up:

• The 2nd paragraph, which is unreferenced, states: ".......Thorium is extracted mostly from monazite: thorium diphosphate (Th(PO4)2) is reacted with nitric acid, and the produced thorium nitrate treated with tributyl phosphate. Rare-earth impurities are separated by increasing the pH in sulfate solution."
• This is almost repeated, but in far more detail in the 3rd paragraph, which is referenced: i.e. "Monazite is decomposed with a 45% aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide at 140 °C. Mixed metal hydroxides are extracted first, filtered at 80 °C, washed with water and dissolved with concentrated hydrochloric acid. Next, the acidic solution is neutralized with hydroxides to pH = 5.8 that results in precipitation of thorium hydroxide (Th(OH)4) contaminated with ~3% of rare-earth hydroxides; the rest of rare-earth hydroxides remains in solution. Thorium hydroxide is dissolved in an inorganic acid and then purified from the rare earth elements. An efficient method is the dissolution of thorium hydroxide in nitric acid, because the resulting solution can be purified by extraction with organic solvents:[74] Th(OH)4 + 4 HNO3 → Th(NO3)4 + 4 H2O Metallic thorium is separated from the anhydrous oxide, chloride or fluoride by reacting it with calcium in an inert atmosphere:[76] ThO2 + 2 Ca → 2 CaO + Th ".

  I went to the source and it supports what was written, but the writing was awkward and did not make it clear those are different extraction varieties - fixed. Mav is working on thorium and when he'll get it to FAC, this information might get redundant and superfluous, but for now, the thorium article is in a poor state. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I checked Cotton & Wilkinson (1972), which is what I used for my 1st degree. There is quite a good explanation of the process/difficulties. If no one else gets round to fixing it first (and it clears a "Hold") I'll substitute the Cotton & Wilkinson material and reference. However, I'd rather not get into a conflict of interest in this review, i.e. substantial editing as well as reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• In one method, the ore is burned and then reacted with nitric acid to convert uranium into a dissolved state. Treating the solution with a solution of tributyl phosphate (TBP) in kerosene transforms uranium into an organic form UO2(NCS)2·2TBP. Where does the NCS come from in the resulting complex?.--Stone (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  It is taken from the source, and the source gives only general outline, without intermediate steps. Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on the use of formulas, such as UO2(NCS)2·2TBP, where some combinations of the letters/numbers, such as "UO2", are clearly periodic table symbols for elements; some such as "·2TBP" are ad noc abbreviations; and some such as "(NCS)2" could be either. If a "formula" UO2(NCS)2·2TBP is to be used, then it should also be named (IUPAC or common name, I don't hold strong views): otherwise it is ambiguous. (I'm ignoring subscripts here, but they should be (and are) present in the article. Pyrotec (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The extraction section gives only separation of Pu and U and the separation of Ac from La. I know that some strange scientist separated considerable quantities of the actinides from spent fuel this should be mentioned somehow. Is there the same process possible like within the lanthanide fractionated crystallisation or is liquid extraction used or is the difference in redox potential big enough to reduce or oxidise them separately? --Stone (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Frankly, I was always scared by those separation procedures when expanding individual lanthanide/actinide articles, because their description was always missing some steps, even in the most accessible sources I could get (sort of "add this and obtain that", without clear physical/chemical connection between the reagents). Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Properties & Compounds -

• Generally, these two sections look OK.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - However, in the Oxides and hydroxides subsection, this sentence looks strange: "To dissolve ThO2acids, it is heated to 500–600 °C; heating above 600 °C produces a very resistant to acids and other reagents form of ThO2. Small addition of fluoride ions catalyses dissolution of thorium dioxide in acids." Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  Corrected a typo "To dissolve ThO2 in acids". Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Applications -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC) - The largest application for plutonium is not mentioned. Nuclear weapons. This should be made clear that the production of tonnes of plutonium only happens to built weapons. --Stone (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Added on that. Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Toxicity & WP:Lead -

• These sections look OK.

• This review has taken somewhat longer than I would of hoped, nevertheless I regard it as substantially completed. There are some outstanding actions above, so I'm putting this review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, it was definitely productive. My motivation here is improving the article, not the GA status. I have fixed the "NCS" blunder in the uranium extraction (comment by Stone). I think using TBP is Ok, as it is defined and wikilinked, and its full formula is unwieldy, but I am neutral to amendments. I think I fixed what I could (easily) fix. The extraction section is weak and patched, and to be honest I am just not motivated to research the extraction topic and rewrite the section. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can this review be wrapped up soon? We're at the 50 day mark now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of 50 days? Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, it's just that holds are generally 7, and 50's pretty far over that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the review. It was placed On Hold on 13 July 2011 (see the paragraph above) - just because the bot says its 50 days does not make it true (yes, we've have this conversation before). Since its been On Hold nearly two weeks I'm trying to clear some non-compliances myself - it was a "drive by" nomination, the nominator made no contribution; and much of the work was done by an editor who does not have GA-status as a goal (improving the article is the only goal). Pyrotec (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I'd like to express my thanks to Materialscientist for attending to many of the "problems" highlighted above. Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)