Open main menu

This is ComplexRational's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to ComplexRational.
Archives: 1
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

vn-2This user talk page has been vandalized 2 times.

Horn of AfricaEdit

Hi, just a friendly heads-up: I reverted Xiriid's change at Horn of Africa which you accepted; not sure if you want to re-review, or perhaps raise this at the article talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you for the heads-up. After doing a second fact check, it seems that the research behind the map is correct but the presentation is not; there are several hypotheses for the origin of the Proto-Afroasiatic language and the map/caption given suggest that the Horn of Africa is the correct one. It's a fine line, but I see how this could violate WP:NPOV, in which case no re-review is required. I could leave a short note on the talk page as well. Again, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


I guess Alper Bilgin's idea is that some would come from cluster decay of natural 228Th. Much too rare in any case to detect and mention, of course. Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: That is a possibility, but you are right that the amount produced would be negligible. This raises another important question, though (I'm not sure if this was ever discussed in detail at WT:ELEM): how abundant need a "trace" radioisotope be for us to label it as naturally occurring? This is especially relevant for cosmogenic nuclides, fission/cluster decay products, and the neptunium series - where exactly do we draw the line between trace and synthetic? ComplexRational (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the most defensible line is to say that it's trace if anyone has found any. For consistency's sake I could agree with supplementing that with the daughters of such nuclides in the major decay branches (so even if no one has looked for 213Bi in nature specifically – they might have, I haven't checked – it's still trace because 237Np has to pass through that). But I would not count rare branches like all those cluster decays. Otherwise the floodgates open because everything up to a certain mass number will occasionally appear due to cosmic rays and spontaneous fission. ^_^ But I think we need to make some kind of distinction between "traces", even if you draw the line strictly at somebody having found any, because some "traces" are significantly bigger than others. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we can open a discussion on such a distinction at WT:ELEM. ComplexRational (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Side note on the decay chain of 237NpEdit

@Double sharp: While it's pretty clear now that we probably shouldn't include fission or cluster decay products, I'm still not sure what to say about the neptunium series. Some sources clearly say that the chain does not occur (is extinct) in nature, but the presence of 237Np itself in nature is not disputed, implying (as you said) that all its decay products must exist, at least transiently. We have them labelled as trace radioisotopes in the infoboxes, so I probably should make notes in the tables for isotopes of Pb - Pa, but that will challenge the cited statements for the number of naturally occurring isotopes for each of those elements. However, this could also be another instance of "rare decay", considering the low initial abundance of 237Np (in the article it's given as 10-12 relative to uranium) and short half-lives of its decay products. I won't make any more changes related to this for the moment, but I'm currently leaning towards including them as naturally occurring. ComplexRational (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Some Np series isotopes have been found in nature (paper is from 1952), so I think it's not much of a stretch to include the rest. (BTW, you may like 10.1103/PhysRev.72.253, the 1947 paper where the name "neptunium series" was first suggested for the (4n+1) series.) Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thanks for the sources; I used the first to clarify this natural occurrence in the decay chain article (it previously said the chain was completely extinct). I also finished changing all the isotopes articles to account for traces of isotopes in this decay chain - even though 221Ra and 217Rn may be a stretch. ComplexRational (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


I understand your comment about californium being the last element to have a use and while Californium is used in a lot of things, on Wikipedia it says that einsteinium is used in calibrators on rovers and production of heavier elements. So I dont entirely understand your comment. Can you please explain it? Porygon-Z (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: First, you are correct about the use of 254Es in rover calibrators - I missed that little bit of information as it is a valid application. That said, californium is the last element with a commercial application, while einsteinium is used in a very specific role in scientific research (a role based on the unique characteristics of 254Es). Other than that, scientific research and production of heavier elements isn't really an application in the sense that it impacts everyday life. One could even make an argument that any element is used for such purposes; for example, the chemistry of rutherfordium is studied as basic scientific research, and elements such as argon, calcium, and zinc were also used to produce heavier elements (as projectiles). While it is not incorrect to cite such an application in the article, it could be seen as nonspecific and/or insignificant when discussing "uses". ComplexRational (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Well, I agree with that. But what about Fermium? I heard it is used with Yt as a bowl for handling Fermium metal. Is that true? And if so, is it a use? Porygon-Z (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: The image caption in fermium states that the alloy was produced to study the characteristics of fermium - which is basic scientific research. This would thus not count as a use, and fermium cannot really have any uses because only picograms can currently be accumulated; that's not really enough for anything. ComplexRational (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: But isn't it made of fermium atoms? Doesn't something have to have atoms, although agreeable that it's not much but it's something, to have to alloys with it, therefore having a use because it has atoms of fermium studying fermium metal? Just saying. Just to let you know, I'm writing a binder of every fact, use and compound of every element. And I happen to have some compounds for Fm that I'm not sure about. So far, I have (now I don't know about if these so called compounds are factual. I've looked on different sites for these, so if you could verify these I'd greatly appreciate it.) C18H38FmN2O8P+ and FmCl2. Any other facts would be great.Porygon-Z (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: Yes, there are indeed fermium atoms, but it still holds true that they are not seen or created anywhere outside research labs. Unfortunately, I haven't found any references to those compounds, so I wouldn't recommend including those compounds (unless you find a source). Finally, there are several fact sheets that clearly indicate that fermium has no uses outside basic research, though there are a few interesting papers describing investigations of some of fermium's properties. If anything especially stands out, I'll let you know. ComplexRational (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
P.S. There is no need to ping me when posting on my talk page, as your message alone triggers a notification by default.
Oh, alright then. Thank you. Also, I don't know if is accurate but it's the only site I could find for FmCl2. As for C18H38FmN2O8P+, I'm not sure where I got that from either. But I think Chemicool has some info on Fm I think you should take a look at. Are these sites accurate? Is there any info you could put in the article from the info on these sites? Porygon-Z (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: There are a few publications from 1972 by N.B. Mikheev describing FmCl2 but AFAICT there is no open access version available. All I found so far is this. Chemicool looks accurate, but there is nothing there not already in the fermium article here. ComplexRational (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
So then FmCl2 is a real compound? Can you put it in the article or is it already in it? Sorry, I'm just very interested. By any chance is there any info on fermium or any actides for that matter? I just don't wanna get off topic or they'll shut us down. Porygon-Z (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: According to the entry in the book I linked, FmCl2 was made but not purified; I added that into the article. For other actinides, you'll probably have to do some digging yourself. I can assure you that at least the first few actinides are referenced in plenty of places - but that is a whole other discussion. ComplexRational (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. So back to Einsteinium, I do have a Few questions about it. Like is there any more info I can obtain to put in my binder? Porygon-Z (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: I'll have to leave you to research more specific details of Es - but large directories (such as the one I linked) and journal articles are good starting points for this type of information. ComplexRational (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Well Can you link them because my device can't always go on other sites for blocking reasons. And besides, shouldn't every site be accurate enough to where publishers actually publish true facts about their findings or at least videos like Periodic Videos? Porygon-Z (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: Simply put, there's way too much out there to link in one place at one time. If it helps, I do often use and to find articles, and several of the references used in Wikipedia articles may also be accessible. And unfortunately, many websites are not as accurate and/or complete as we'd like - so it's almost always better to cite a refereed publication directly. ComplexRational (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
While I understand where you're coming from and agree, there's no reason that sites can't simplify what the info says and put it it all into one place. Wikipedia is one of them, but I feel like there should be more information. Not to mention no OR doesn't help but I also understand it's for not being biased. What do you think? Porygon-Z (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: I very much agree that the layout of these websites is inconvenient for this type of work, but that's the way it is, so specific searches are really the only way to go. But I have to disagree with your other point, as WP:NOR is fundamental to the integrity and accuracy of this encyclopedia - without it, WP would be no better than the other websites you describe. The only other thing I can suggest is that you visit WP:Reference desk/Science, where other editors may also be able to assist you in your research. Good luck there! ComplexRational (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. I wish you the best!Porygon-Z (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!Edit

Hello, ComplexRational, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Isotope updates (2016)Edit

Thanks for updating me! (my edits ;-) ). It was very hard to check exactly those exact updates (in 118 articles). Anyway, I think maintenance is easier now, and surely more consistent by header. -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep:   You're welcome! Glad to help, and thank you for deploying the header in all 118 articles. So far, I have only updated the first 20 articles. Maintenance will indeed be easier now, and (hopefully tomorrow) I'll take a look at parsing an ASCII file or sortable list to ease updating data. ComplexRational (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Parsing the ASCII file(s) would be a bigger step fwd, but I cannot promise any time to help... -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Synthetic elementEdit

Thanks for noting the error (wrong year) in my recent 21 edits at Synthetic element. I see that you have been keeping an eye on this article since Jan 2019, and made a few edits yourself. As an expert in this field, I am hoping that you reviewed all my edits, and found them to be acceptable improvements. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@IiKkEe: It's one of those articles that I try to make small improvements to whenever I discover new information or notice something is off. Copyediting and restructuring prose as you have done is always welcome, especially considering that many nuclear physics articles need work, so thank you for undertaking that job :) Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words... Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Woah, a barnstar!Edit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I was just minding my own business patrolling recent changes, until I ran into you fighting vandalism (and beating me to it ._.). I wanted to show my appreciation for your reflexes as attacking the problems the second they arise. Thanks for helping keep the wiki clean! Utopes (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Utopes: Thank you! And I also thank you for your anti-vandalism work ;) ComplexRational (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Polonium-210Edit

 On 30 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Polonium-210, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that polonium-210 is 250,000 times more toxic by weight than hydrogen cyanide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Polonium-210. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Polonium-210), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cardiac cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atrioventricular (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for the update! But the reference is giving me a 404. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Aha – the accented character in the URL was the problem. Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
P.S. And some more links for you (if you didn't already find them): one (similar to the slideshow but sometimes more detailed; apparently Cm+Ti is only paused), two (proton evaporation channels might work and get us more neutron-rich isotopes of the heaviest elements!). And the paper they were citing for that: chances for 283,284Rg! 286–287Cn! 287–290Nh! 290,291Fl! 291–294Mc! 294Lv! 295–297Ts! (with pxn and αxn reactions). Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Double sharp: You're welcome! Of these sources, I read the second one (on ScienceDirect) before, but the other two look brand new to me. The conference PDF is clearer than the slideshow actually, as it indicates a pause (as you said) and the year of the experiment (2016). I find the prospect of synthesizing these isotopes quite exciting, so thanks for some more great resources! ComplexRational (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I also think you might enjoy this (the book I referenced). Swinne certainly sounds way ahead of his time, suggesting that there might be some more stable transuranics, proposing to look for superheavies near the poles locked up from cosmic rays and suggesting electronic structures for Z = 218 back in 1914 to 1931(!). Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I guess that's a new early prediction to add to history of the periodic table, and it also looks like Swinne predicted the island of stability in 1931 around Z = 108. A very interesting find indeed, thank you! ComplexRational (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

op47 wishes to talk to you on the user's pageEdit

Answered on your talkpage. ComplexRational (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of "original research" from nuclear physics articlesEdit

So I tracked down your original proposal regarding "observationally stable" isotopes. Unfortunately, I had no knowledge of it while it was in progress and was therefore unable to respond.

Theoretical possibility of decay modes follows directly from the isotope masses. If mass of the mother > mass of all daughters put together, then the decay is theoretically possible. Anyone with the isotope masses (which are sourced) and a calculator can verify that Nb-93 is theoretically capable of spontaneous fission into Ca-46 and Sc-47, and (with rather more tedium) verify that the lighter observationally-stable nuclides are not so capable.

It would appear that the common-sense principle regarding obvious, indisputable mathematical deductions has been noticed by other Wikipedians, as WP:CALC is policy.

While I actually agree with you regarding unsourced or outdated isotope data, and I applaud you for taking that up, the removal of theoretical decay modes is really rather objectionable and I'd like to undo it. Magic9mushroom (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Magic9mushroom: I was initially unsure about this, so thank you for pointing this out. (BTW, I was already aware of the calculations that lead to this conclusion, but it's always helpful to write out the example.) While WP:CALC is indeed policy, it seems that it only is applicable when there is consensus that the calculations are obvious, indisputably correct, and can be easily drawn from the sources. I'm not sure if such consensus exists for this, especially since there is a rather fine line between a straightforward calculation and the conclusion of instability (inferred, but not written out). As the result of the last discussion was not entirely clear, and no new sources have appeared, I will open a new discussion at WT:ELEM (referring to this thread), and not make any more changes in the meantime. ComplexRational (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Beryllium-8Edit

 On 14 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beryllium-8, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that because the half-life of beryllium-8 is less than 10−16 seconds, there is a bottleneck in stellar nucleosynthesis that limits the abundance of heavier chemical elements? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beryllium-8. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beryllium-8), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Question for administratorEdit

I am requesting assistance in regards to two posts I made at ANI concerning disruptive edits from an IP range. It seems that both requests may have been unintentionally overlooked; the first was archived after no administrator response and the second was superseded by later posts that were answered within two hours. While the matter itself is not of utmost importance, I am only requesting that it at least be investigated by a willing admin, so that it does not fall through the cracks at ANI again and any appropriate action is taken. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello ComplexRational, unfortunately reports do sometimes fall through the cracks. However, EdJohnston (another administrator) has since blocked the range for a period of 2 weeks. Is there anything else that you need assistance with? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: I noticed that EdJohnston blocked the range, but thank you anyway for letting me know. I would like to ask, though, if this is the appropriate means to ask for help when no response is given at ANI, or if another course of action is generally preferred. Again, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The {{adminhelp}} template was still active, so I responded when I saw it and let you know  . Glad I could help!   As for the appropriate venue, that is what I would consider generally variable. I personally don't have an issue with the {{adminhelp}} route, nor do I have one with adding a comment with a recent timestamp at the ANI thread in question (thus preventing the automatic archiving), nor do I with asking an administrator on their talk page if they could take a look (I am fairly good at responding promptly to inquiries on mine). Does that help any? Happy to explain further if you have any questions  . --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you! This is indeed very helpful; I'll keep it in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Miramare di RiminiEdit

 On 30 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Miramare di Rimini, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a railroad bisects the Italian town of Miramare di Rimini into a residential neighborhood and a prominent tourist area? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miramare di Rimini. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Miramare di Rimini), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for the diffs from areas where I don't overlap with them. I thought your final paragraph was an excellent summary of the issues. --JBL (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@JBL: Glad to help. And thank you for indenting the bullet points, by the way. ComplexRational (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

  Administrator changes

  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes


  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Superheavy elementEdit

Hi. I was wondering if you were interested in looking into improving superheavy element after you're done with island of stability. I recently saw an interesting article that I think would make a great addition to the topic; the article was about how this research is of little practical interest and the difficulties (primarily, financial) it faces because of that. The article is in Russian, but I could send you what Google Translate can make out it, regardless of whether you will do it or just would be curious to read the article. This motivated me to add that at first but I have my hands full and I thought this may be interesting for you.

@Double sharp: you may be curious to read this as well.--R8R (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: I would certainly be interested in taking up that project in the near future (provided that this semester doesn't prove too tasking). As a matter of fact, this would be a perfect opportunity to include some other information I read about superheavy elements—as island of stability deals specifically and exclusively with nuclear properties, this is the other half of the puzzle. Now I am curious about this article, and even if it's a machine translation, I'll still see if I can integrate it. Thanks for sharing this! ComplexRational (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@R8R: I for one am interested too – even as I stand frustrated enough with writing a lede for the properties section of Al that I have half a mind to just start spamming out about the chemistry and go back to that later... Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Great! As a matter of fact, I did have the impression this article was a translation from English, and now I have found the original text. Bloomberg is an appropriate place to complain at the expense of this, isn't it? :)
@Double sharp: definitely, save the lead text for last. A lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and to summarize an article, you need the said article, right? Same goes here. At first I tried the more intuitive approach: lead first, details second. It didn't go well because I wrote the lead section without too much knowledge and then I got the knowledge, and I was eager to add that, some things were worth adding, some were not, the list of what I wanted in the lead section changed constantly, and it had to be touched upon over and over. So just forget about it for now and by all means, feel free to do the spamming.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you possibly give me time to fix Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey?Edit

Hello ComplexRational,

Firstly thanks for taking on the review of Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. However I only just read the messages you sent me yesterday to say you had accepted the review and then failed the article. As you know the queue for GA review is several months long so I wonder if you could give me the chance to take up your valuable suggestions in the next few days to avoid having to wait until 2020 for the article to become GA. I can see you have put a lot of work into the review and I am willing to put in the effort to fix the article, but it would be demoralizing to have to wait until next year for it to be accepted. So would it be possible for you to mark the review as awaiting fixes rather than failed outright? Then if you have time it would be great if you could continue the review after I have made your suggested changes as I am sure you would come up with more good suggestions.

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I'd be glad to review it again once these changes are made. However, I think it's better to start a new review page and leave the first alone simply due to the magnitude of the fixes involved and the fact that the renominated article may have a noticeably different structure and/or substantially altered content. In other words, it would be like reviewing a new article altogether, and the whole set of criteria would need a fresh evaluation. The quick fail was simply because I saw many necessary changes—more than I wrote on the review page—before criterion 1 may be fulfilled.
Unfortunately, there is the GA backlog, but there's no mandatory waiting period or limit to GANs for an article, so you can renominate as soon as the article is ready. As things stand, I am still uninvolved enough to take up the second review shortly after it is nominated. I'm glad to see your interest in working on it!
In that case, I'd suggest using external software to fix grammar, and perhaps also consulting the Guild of Copy Editors if you need assistance with copyediting. In regards to one-sentence headings, that's entirely up to you to reorganize or expand with new content. (I cannot do both substantial copyediting directly and a fresh review.) As grammar and the structure are the main hurdles, please take time to review and overhaul the article, and then open a new review. Let me know when you're ready. ComplexRational (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: OK I will first revise it myself. So what external software do you recommend? I suspect the Guild of Copy Editors would do a much better job than software but I have not dealt with them before so will look into that after I have done as much as I can myself. I guess your time would be better spent reviewing once it has been resubmitted rather than copy editing. However you mentioned that more cites might be needed so perhaps you could chuck in as many "citation needed" as you have time for. Also I suspect that because I have read it so many times there are bits where my unconscious is filling in the gaps in meaning which are needed by a first time reader. So once I have done some work on it (hopefully I will be able to do a fair chunk next weekend) I will get a friend to have a look before resubmitting it for GA hopefully before the end of the month. Thanks again for your help.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: The only reason I mentioned outside software is because GOCE also has a backlog (though not as long as the GAN one). Since you expressed interest in GOCE and having feedback from someone IRL, I'd actually encourage that over any machine corrections; even the software built into word processors or available as an add-on does not catch everything. That said, I'll read through the article again, and note a few places that need extra references or expansion. Once it's ready, I'll be glad to do another review. ComplexRational (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested...Edit

Hey ComplexRational, it seems like we run into each other very often here on Wikipedia. Maybe not live, but I notice your participation in the same areas in the Wikipedia namespace where I do. You called me out for using the wrong CSD criteria once as well. Regardless, I figured you may be interested in participating in AfC discussions with your past experience in AfD. I mean, it's really up to you. Just seemed to be up your alley based on my experiences with you, and I noticed you spoke on Jimfbleaks' talk page in the past as I was viewing its history. It was a really minor occurrence this time but it got me thinking. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We need YOU!Edit

Hello ComplexRational,

Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.

There is currently a backlog of over 4400 drafts (1,542 very old).

If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading {{subst:WPAFCInvite}} to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!

Utopes (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "ComplexRational".