GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: JackFromWisconsin ( talk · contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
[Note from BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC): this section contains the material from the original review, which was inexplicably deleted; its history is important, and is being restored here:]
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'll base this initially off of the previous review, then go from there on the rest of the article. Expect comments within a week. -- JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Regrettably, JackFromWisconsin will not be able to continue the review. The nomination status is being changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Great scientific article which covers almost all necessary information about this.
Above review voided per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_reviewer_assessment ( t · c) buidhe 19:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Keresluna: Hello, I will try to take over the review from JackFromWisconsin. Not 100% sure if I should make a GA4 subpage or keep using this one, please let me know or change it if it matters. Expect the review later today/tomorrow. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 02:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
today they are extracted only from ..., or if it is potentially likely to change use the "as of" template (eg.
Today, 226Ra is considered to be the most toxic of the quantity radioelements, ....
Their exposure to radium caused serious health effects which included sores, anemia, and bone cancer. This is because the body treats radium as calcium and deposits it in the bones, where radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells.This level of detail more likely belongs in the hazards section where it isn't covered. The hazards section already has one case study, maybe all the case studies of hazards should go in the hazards section? I think, either keep all the case studies in the hazards section, or rewrite it so it only describes health effects.
The isotope 223Ra (under the trade name Xofigo) was approved by...Xofigo is not 223Ra, according to citation 76 it also contains sodium chloride and other ingredients.
was set at 0.1 micrograms of ingested radium.Can you mark a page number for this? I was not able to verify it in the first few pages of citation 82. Same for a couple other large books.
Salutsky, M.L. & Kirby, H.W. THE RADIOCHEMISTRY OF RADIUM, report, December 1, 1964; United States, University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
I am not exactly an expert on wikipedia citations, but shouldn't the shorthand cite be in a different section using a special template, as described here and in this article example? The House of Flowers (TV series) There are a few styles to choose from there.
On second look I now notice that the shorthand forms are from the bibliography section. Did not realise that at first. So please make a separate section and the appropriate templates for both the Kirby and Greenwood books. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
* Still doing this
So it's a fail for now. Keres🌑, if you want to bring the article to GA, I think that History, Production, and Modern applications needs copyediting and revision of sources used. The article is not bad, but it's a bit neglected and needs some attention. If it would be done, I think it would pass next review. Artem.GI agree the article is very good, still a few things to change as per my feedback. As far as I can tell copyediting is fine now,
Darcyisverycute ( talk) 00:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Putting the review on hold for issues to be fixed. Will look at it again in a week.
Darcyisverycute (
talk)
10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Keresluna: Been a bit over a week, I can see some things have been fixed and but I'm not sure about the timeframe for the rest of my recommended changes. If you think you can make the rest of the changes within a week or so I'll keep the review on hold until then, otherwise I'll probably have to fail it. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 03:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Keresluna: I'm going to fail the review now. Feel free to open it again when you are able to spend more time on it, and I'm happy to pass when above things are fixed. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: JackFromWisconsin ( talk · contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
[Note from BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC): this section contains the material from the original review, which was inexplicably deleted; its history is important, and is being restored here:]
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'll base this initially off of the previous review, then go from there on the rest of the article. Expect comments within a week. -- JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Regrettably, JackFromWisconsin will not be able to continue the review. The nomination status is being changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Great scientific article which covers almost all necessary information about this.
Above review voided per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_reviewer_assessment ( t · c) buidhe 19:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Keresluna: Hello, I will try to take over the review from JackFromWisconsin. Not 100% sure if I should make a GA4 subpage or keep using this one, please let me know or change it if it matters. Expect the review later today/tomorrow. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 02:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
today they are extracted only from ..., or if it is potentially likely to change use the "as of" template (eg.
Today, 226Ra is considered to be the most toxic of the quantity radioelements, ....
Their exposure to radium caused serious health effects which included sores, anemia, and bone cancer. This is because the body treats radium as calcium and deposits it in the bones, where radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells.This level of detail more likely belongs in the hazards section where it isn't covered. The hazards section already has one case study, maybe all the case studies of hazards should go in the hazards section? I think, either keep all the case studies in the hazards section, or rewrite it so it only describes health effects.
The isotope 223Ra (under the trade name Xofigo) was approved by...Xofigo is not 223Ra, according to citation 76 it also contains sodium chloride and other ingredients.
was set at 0.1 micrograms of ingested radium.Can you mark a page number for this? I was not able to verify it in the first few pages of citation 82. Same for a couple other large books.
Salutsky, M.L. & Kirby, H.W. THE RADIOCHEMISTRY OF RADIUM, report, December 1, 1964; United States, University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
I am not exactly an expert on wikipedia citations, but shouldn't the shorthand cite be in a different section using a special template, as described here and in this article example? The House of Flowers (TV series) There are a few styles to choose from there.
On second look I now notice that the shorthand forms are from the bibliography section. Did not realise that at first. So please make a separate section and the appropriate templates for both the Kirby and Greenwood books. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
* Still doing this
So it's a fail for now. Keres🌑, if you want to bring the article to GA, I think that History, Production, and Modern applications needs copyediting and revision of sources used. The article is not bad, but it's a bit neglected and needs some attention. If it would be done, I think it would pass next review. Artem.GI agree the article is very good, still a few things to change as per my feedback. As far as I can tell copyediting is fine now,
Darcyisverycute ( talk) 00:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Putting the review on hold for issues to be fixed. Will look at it again in a week.
Darcyisverycute (
talk)
10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Keresluna: Been a bit over a week, I can see some things have been fixed and but I'm not sure about the timeframe for the rest of my recommended changes. If you think you can make the rest of the changes within a week or so I'll keep the review on hold until then, otherwise I'll probably have to fail it. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 03:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Keresluna: I'm going to fail the review now. Feel free to open it again when you are able to spend more time on it, and I'm happy to pass when above things are fixed. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)