Jump to content

Talk:Sodium/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I might as well give this a try! Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physical
Chemistry
Commercial production
Biological role

The rest looks all right at first glance. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the organisation be better decided upon – the story of 23Na is now split between "isotopes" and "occurrence", and I think it fits better in the former. Likewise, if you would like to keep the NaK graph (and I am a little doubtful on that, since it is quite large), I do believe we need a large discussion of intermetallic compounds before it. It is a little jarring IMHO to talk about such a compound when it has not even been mentioned earlier that this sort of thing is a possibility at all. Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review. I'll try to fix the issues you've noted above as soon as possible. Fuortu (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think 23Na should be in "occurrence" section because it is created in stars. Fuortu (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but then it's oddly split from the cosmogenic production of 22Na and 24Na. So I've moved it up to "isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it now. Thanks Fuortu (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that you take a look at potassium, which is also a famous alkali metal and a GA. It may very well be helpful. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks :) Fuortu (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nomination is going very well, so I do believe that I will be awarding GA status at the end of it after my remaining comments are addressed. Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the comments have been addressed, so I see no obstacle to passing the review. Thank you for your work on this article, and hope to see you again working on chemical elements! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It has been great to work with you on this article. Again, thanks for reviewing this article. :) Fuortu (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]