Talk:Periodic table/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be undertaking a review of this article over the next week or so, but I have some preliminary points to work on:

• The one citation needed tag is an obvious one;
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "While rectangular in general outline, gaps are included in the rows or periods to keep elements with similar properties together, such as the halogens and the noble gases, in columns or groups, forming distinct rectangular areas or blocks." is a real hash of a sentence. I suggest you have another go at explaining what's meant here. "Because the periodic table accurately predicts the properties of various elements and the relations between properties, its use is widespread within chemistry, providing a useful framework for analysing chemical behavior, as well as in other sciences." is better but still poorly worded.
  •  Done.
    Theory¹¹ 01:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Much better. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The external links need to be formatted properly, some indication of where they are going to take us.
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 19:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Could you just confirm that "Another of the most common alternative layouts is Theodor Benfey's periodic table" is supported by the citation? It would have been tempting to merely link to an example and therefore if you could possibly verify this.
  • Removed "of the most common", so  Done.
    Theory¹¹ 19:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Could you please explain how "Calculations from the Dirac equation" is within the scope of this article;
  • In my opinion, the Dirac equation is in the scope of the article because it helps identify where the end of the periodic table may be. If we can get consensus that it is not notable, however, I would not be opposed to removing it.
    Theory¹¹ 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Oh, I misunderstood it. The two subsections need to be introduced in the first part of that section, I think. The last sentence of the first part seems to be a repeat of the second section. Not particularly keen on "more accurate" unless there were literal errors in the original – it seems to me that the model has to be merely refined to produce a better result. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Note that as atomic number" not encyclopedic.
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 01:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Reading through I'm considering requesting a copyedit or something of that sort. I think it is vital on an article of this importance to get this right: "clear and concise" must be strictly interpreted
• "Period trends" and its subsections don't seem to do a good job of explaining the actual trends. Some good info on the definition of a group and period (although this could still be clearer). Things like "usually decreases" and "Metals (left side of a period) generally have a lower electron affinity than nonmetals (right side of a period) with the exception of the noble gases." go basically unexplained. Some words could be cut out of saying there's "a trend" as an introduction to each point – if you say something increases or decreases, one can readily infer there's a trend.
  • I'm considering splitting this up into two seperate sections: one explaining what the periods, groups, and blocks are, and one explaining the trends in them. This will take some time, so it will take me a few days to get done.
    Theory¹¹ 16:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    •  Done
      Theory¹¹ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

All for now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:Mendeleev's 1869 periodic table.png needs a US PD-1923 tag;
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 15:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Otherwise good. No real omissions on that front either. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the history section make sure to mention the old style of classifying the groups, the main groups ?A and the transition metal groups, ?B.
  Nergaal (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Was the switch to the roman numerals officially adopted at some specific point in the past?
      Nergaal (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• "Atomic number, element symbol, and name are almost always included, and atomic weights, densities, melting and boiling points, crystal structure as a solid, origin, abbreviated electron configuration, electronegativity, and most common valence numbers are often included as well" ~ is "often" correct? I've never seen one with some of this stuff.
  • I have one with these at my house.... Changed to "sometimes included as well," so  Done
    Theory¹¹ 15:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Ref 30 needs replacing. It just doesn't cover what is implied that it does. Very little of the last paragraph of Contents is actually supported by linking to a single periodic table which doesn't explain about isotopes. I'd be more lenient about the first paragraph of Organization but even there I thin you need some other references.
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "(the table shown in this section shows the old American Naming System)" can't really get to it and that sort of reference tends to be deprecated because we have all sorts of users where that might not apply. Better to just explain what the old American Naming System was. If one of our images uses it, it's clearly in use.
  • Image no longer in section, so  Done
    Theory¹¹ 15:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Could you have a look at eliminating the use of the word "through" (e.g. in "Blocks")? Although the article is in AmEng, the word isn't used like that in BrEng (and others) so if you can avoid it, that's preferable.
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• The last paragraph of "Variations" doesn't seem to list variations.I suggest renaming the section, because there isn't easily somewhere else you can put it. "Variations and other conventions", maybe?
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 15:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Will continue later. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think recently some elements past plutonium were regarded as naturally occurring.
  Nergaal (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 03:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Large parts of "Atomic and ionic radii", "First ionization energy and reactivity" and "Electronegativity" are unreferenced and this needs to be done
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• You're missing a space before "tantalum"
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 18:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "Generally the (n+1)th ionization energy is larger than the nth ionization energy. Always, the next ionization energy involves removing an electron from an orbital closer to the nucleus." A bit unclear. Start with what an ionization energy is (in a sentence) and work from there.
  •  Done
    Theory¹¹ 18:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at refs #14 and #22.

 Done

Theory¹¹ 00:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Review the wikilinking of atomic number, carbon, D-block, Einsteinium, F-block, Gallium, Noble gas, proton, and ununoctium.

 Done

Theory¹¹ 23:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]