Wikipedia:Peer review/Berkelium/archive1

Berkelium

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because R8R Gtrs told me it's the closest to FA among the non-FA actinides and I'd be interested in working on this.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this one. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Picture File:Berkeley 60-inch cyclotron.gif may have copyright issues: The source data for that pic should prove that the photographer that took the pic was a DOE employee. At the moment, I only see that the pic is from a DOE archive.
• Picture File:Berkelium.jpg - also needs to identify the individual photographer. NOTE; you can try to get these pics approved at FAC, but others have been rejected in the past for these reasons.
• Lots o' footnotes: " quickly decays to californium-250.[74][75][76] " - Consider collapsing groups like this; follow guidance at WP:CITEBUNDLE. There are several groups of footnotes that could be improved that way.
• Footnotes per sentence: Generally, it is okay to have footnotes at the end of a paragraph. But when a sentence has a particularly interesting or provocative statement, it is best to attach a footnote to the sentence. See WP:INTEGRITY for some discussion on that. For instance, this sentence: "Little is known about the effects of berkelium on human body, and analogies with other elements may not be drawn because of different radiation products (electrons for berkelium and alpha particles and/or neutrons for most other actinides)."
• Define term: "The maximum permissible body burden for the isotope .." - what is "body burden"? Define or link.
• Wording: "The second important berkelium isotope, berkelium-247, is an alpha-emitter as most actinide isotopes" - Should that say " ... as are most ..."?
• Wording: "The longest-lived isotope of berkelium (247Bk) has a half-life of only 1,380 years" - Remove "only" ... a bit judgemental; the remainder of the sentence explains the import. Also, c.f. "The thus-produced 249Bk has a long half-life of 330 days".
• Wording: " ... during its formation, should have decayed by now. " - "Should" is a bit ontological. Just say " .. has decayed by now".
• Wording: " ... the quantities produced at NIIAR are not widely reported. " - Either they are reported or not. Remove "widely".
• Wording: Synthetic: "Berkelium is a synthetic, silvery-white, radioactive ..." - Why "synthetic" in the "Physical properties" section? First, the article implies that some was in existence in primordial earth; and second, synthetic is not really a physical property. Would we see "expensive" here? Better would be the lead wording: "Berkelium is a soft, silvery-white, radioactive metal. ..."
• More pics are always better: consider pic of Seaborg, or colleague.
• Link needed for first occurrence of divalent. Also, check other technical terms ... there may be others with this issue.
• Links: I see no ambiguous links.
• Ext links: Tool says they are all okay.
• Citations: look good. But some end in periods; some don't.
• Footnote #48 has a star icon in the source name; is that supposed to be there?
• Wording: " A search for an initially suspected isotope 241Bk was then unsuccessful." - Remove "then"; unless there is a great reason for the word, in which case explain the reason in that sentence.
• Explain: "with the layer sequence ABAC and so is isotypic with α-lanthanum ..." - isotypic is a red link, which is okay, but therefore you need to add a few words here explaining the term.
• Comprehensive: Great ... I like the fact that lots of supplemental facts (e.g. US/Russia collaboration) are included ... it enriches the article.
• Clarify: "The above reactions illustrate that although 247Bk is the most stable isotope of berkelium, its production in nuclear reactors is very inefficient. " - I don't think it is proper to ask the reader to assess the reactions ... can you supply words here that help the reader understand that causality?
• Wording: "..procedure adopted at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory was as follows:" - I've never liked "as follows" but maybe that is just me.
• Tense: "Berkelium(III) sulfide, Bk2S3, was prepared by either ..." - Should probably be "is prepared" to be consistent with other material in this section.
• Also: "Berkelium(III) fluoride (BkF3) is also a yellow-green solid, but .." - the word "also" should generally be avoided, especially here where it is starting a new paragraph. Ideally, paragraphs could be moved around a bit without impacting other paras. Consider removing "also".
• Isotope? - "At ambient conditions, berkelium assumes its most stable α form ..." - is this limited to a particular isotope?
• Wording: "Upon heating, α-berkelium transforms into another "metastable" phase (that is at ambient temperature it gradually converts back to α-berkelium). " - Confusing. Try: "Upon heating, α-berkelium transforms into another phase with an fcc lattice; this phase is metastable and will gradually revert back to the original phase at room temperatures." Or similar.
• Conclusion: I think this is very close to FA status. I think if you can implement the above suggestions, you should be able to take it to WP:FAC. Also, consider asking an editor who has created an FA-quality article on elements to review it (e.g. User:mav).

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Too wordy for an element that has only laboratory interest. Californium is half the size and that element has much more practical uses. Examples: History section goes on and on about the isolation of Bk (and isn't there any history for this element after its isolation?). Filler in the Physical section, first paragraph that lists relative location in periodic table, and then some comparisons of physical properties between Bk, curium, and californium; why is that significant? The "two sharp fluorescence peaks" sentence sounds interesting and I want to know more about the f-shell connection but then the next two sentences loose me with info that I read in specialist articles but would not consider putting in a general encyclopedia article. Gotta go. More later. --mav (reviews needed) 01:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)