Wikipedia:Peer review/Periodic table/archive1

Toolbox
Copying check Manual of Style
v t e

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to at least GA (preferably FA) in the next month or so, but it is currently, to be honest, terrible, and needs major work.

Thanks, StringTheory¹¹ 04:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One dab link that will need to be fixed here

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 03:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One dead link here

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 04:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in improving this important article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Chemistry_and_mineralogy which may be useful as models - perhaps Noble gas would be a useful model as it is about several elements?
• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD, which says it should be no more than 4 paragraphs long (it is now 6).
  •  Done FREYWA 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but geology, biology, medicine, and astronomy are only mentioned in the lead, and some very specific details like For example: "eka-aluminium", expected to have properties intermediate between aluminium and indium, was discovered with said properties in 1875 and named gallium. are not repeated in the body of the article.
  •  Done FREYWA 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but "Blocks" are not mentioned in the lead explicitly that I can see

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 19:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should give general information and the body of the article should give the specific details
• Avoid needless repetition - for example in the lead too much detail / repetion is given to technetium, promethium and neptunium
• In general watch out for WP:OVERLINKing - plutonium is linked twice in the lead and Meyer twice in History, for example.

 Done; I prefer to keep links in the lead and in the body once, but repeats in the body have been removed. StringTheory¹¹ 18:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Links should appear on first use - see electronegativity, for example (link is second use)
• Biggest problem this would face at FAC or GAN is a lack of references - for example the Organization section seems to have zero refs, and the Alternatives lacks refs in many places
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would start with History as many of the concepts could be introduced more easily / simply that way

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go into more detail in History - for example give specifics of one of Mendeleev's predictions (take it from the lead) or more details on Moseley and the development of atomic number would help.
• I would use the Te and I example as a better example for not following atomic mass - again more details on how I fits better with the halogens would help.

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a lot on isotopes in the last paragraph of Periodic table, which seems to be too much detail for this article - focus on the Periodic table wherever possible

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEAD says not to repeat the name of the article as a section header if at all possible

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there reliable sources saying the form of the Periodic table shown is the most common one?
• Perhaps show thumbnails of some of the other forms of the periodic table - extended and wide

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The alternatives are mostly about tweaks to the standard form (stair step line, hyperlinks, where to put La or H) and mostly ignores things like File:Elementspiral.svg

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 00:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Periodic table#Points on history missing has many potentially useful comments. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• History comments

For now, I suggest splitting History section into three subsections: Attempts to systematize elements, Reasons for Mendeleev's success, and Further development (titles are of your choice, it's important for you to get the idea). One by one, what is missing and important

 Done StringTheory¹¹ 21:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Attempts to systematize elements
    • Lavoisier also redefined the term "element" and added light to the list of elements.^{[citation needed]}
    • Döbereiner experienced problems with P, As, Sb, and Bi. Having limited himself to triads, he didn't make it to the fact they were all similar.

• • Reasons for Mendeleev's success
    • Beryllium was mostly considered trivalent before Mendeleev's work (see here, for example)
    • He also changed a few atomic masses: U from 60 to 240, Be from 13.5 to 9, so on. (There are more, but this is clearly enough)

• • Further development
    • Noble gases discovery
    • Stone's idea from the talkpage: "The lanthanides or rare earth elements and the expansion of the periodic table, with an unkown number of elements. There the final fixture of the table by the measurments of Henry Moseley could be helpful."
    • 7th period research up to 1950: first Th, Pa, and U "were" analogs of Hf, Ta, and W. Then U, Np, and Pu "started" the uranide series of +6 elements, all in the same cell under tungsten. In 1944, Seaborg came up with the idea of "actinides" (watch this); this was first opposed (invention of curide series (check this. Just a snippet, but it gives enough impression). Also, Russian wiki says the name for the term was invented in 1937 by Victor Moritz Goldschmidt and even gives a ref: ^[1]

**Uncertainties after element 118.. really 118? 112 and 114 were also very surprising originally, thought to be gases.^{[citation needed]} (Also, 119 and 120 may form +3 and +4 oxidation states, respectively...^[2] In case you're interested)

 Doing... StringTheory¹¹ 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the book; does it include the info on 112 and 114, or just on 119 and 120? StringTheory¹¹ 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 15: Adloff, Jean-Pierre (25 September 2005). "Error: no |title= specified when using {{Cite web}}". The Chemical Educator.

 Done by another editor. StringTheory¹¹ 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more. It's unlikely that I'll get you sources before it's the 11th, but anyway specify the exact sources you need.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citation needed tags to where I need refs. StringTheory¹¹ 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]