Talk:Roentgenium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 04:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Few minor issues:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The sentence on RgH about the strength of the bond should reference something for the "otherwise", as we're making a comparison when we say "twice as...". The paragraphs on nuclear isomers should give a little background for the general reader. "as yet undiscovered" → "undiscovered". Also, for the polyfluoride anions, say "predicted to be" - you can't say it that definititely without any chemistry experiements on it. For experimental chemistry, why do you say that the reason why it hasn't been measured is due to the short half-lives, when 26 seconds is plenty of time according to the requirement mentioned in the following sentence?

    Done Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   What does it mean when "more complex compounds" may be formed by Rg(III) then Au(III)?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold while the prose is improved.