The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:13, 27 February 2010 [1].
Caesium ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
There hasn't been a chemical element up for FAC in quite some time. I believe this article is complete, well organized and well referenced. There should be only a few touchups remaining which will hopefully be caught in this FAC. Nergaal ( talk) 06:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
[[File:Cs-137-decay.svg|thumb|right|250px|Decay scheme of caesium-137]]
and there's no alt text there; could you please add it?Otherwise, images appear to comply with policy. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
publisher
parameter when they should have been using the newspaper
parameter. I have not done anything with ref 34. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
edits|⚡}}
17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replyBreak, and resuming my oppose (as it were)
I have concerns about this article - i am not saying they are with the nominator. I've started to look more closely at selected spots.
I haven't time to go through everything else, but i think this article has some serious problems, and I would recommend the nominator withdraw it at FAC. I will leave them an message. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This looks decent:
There's an example on p. 256, a table of short-lived isotopes on p. 280, a model graph on p. 291. This ref. includes some discussion of caesium:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Here's a ref. on isotopic evidence from the early Solar System:
Interestingly, there was also a study of Caesium in the atmosphere of a brown dwarf, where it was used to probe the atmospheric chemistry:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:13, 27 February 2010 [1].
Caesium ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
There hasn't been a chemical element up for FAC in quite some time. I believe this article is complete, well organized and well referenced. There should be only a few touchups remaining which will hopefully be caught in this FAC. Nergaal ( talk) 06:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
[[File:Cs-137-decay.svg|thumb|right|250px|Decay scheme of caesium-137]]
and there's no alt text there; could you please add it?Otherwise, images appear to comply with policy. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
publisher
parameter when they should have been using the newspaper
parameter. I have not done anything with ref 34. {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
edits|⚡}}
17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replyBreak, and resuming my oppose (as it were)
I have concerns about this article - i am not saying they are with the nominator. I've started to look more closely at selected spots.
I haven't time to go through everything else, but i think this article has some serious problems, and I would recommend the nominator withdraw it at FAC. I will leave them an message. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC) reply
This looks decent:
There's an example on p. 256, a table of short-lived isotopes on p. 280, a model graph on p. 291. This ref. includes some discussion of caesium:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Here's a ref. on isotopic evidence from the early Solar System:
Interestingly, there was also a study of Caesium in the atmosphere of a brown dwarf, where it was used to probe the atmospheric chemistry:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)