Wikipedia:Peer review/Alkali metal/archive1

Alkali metal

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've done a lot of work on the article, it's got more pictures now, and it's definitely much better cited than it was before. I nominated it for WP:GA earlier, but it failed, so I'd like to get some comments on the article so that more can be done on it.

Thanks, Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R8R Gtrs's comments

I don't tend to cover all, and you'll need a better editor (and my words aren't very worthy now, so be free to argue). But here's what I can say after a short look:

Use from now one "one ref per para" rule - no less than one reference should appear in every paragraph, the best is linking the most controversial. You've got a lot to do here...

"The alkali metals are a group of chemical elements in the periodic table." Wait, the group is Group 1, which is alkali metals plus hydrogen. Maybe, "a chemical series" would go better? The second sentence is wrong, you can see IUPAC Periodic Table, search their webcite, you'll see H in Group 1.
- Something akin to "chemical elements" is needed because you can't assume the reader will be familiar with "periodic table" or even chemistry in general. WP:TECHNICAL This is the type of thing that gets focused upon during an FAC.—RJH (talk)
  - "A series of chemical elements in the periodic table" would surely do. Just something doesn't mention group word
    - Done Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The alkali metals contain lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), caesium or cesium (Cs) and francium (Fr).[1]" better would look with a single "caesium" name, with a footnote about controversy and a link to Caesium, section Spelling

"This group lies in the s-block of the periodic table, which also includes alkaline earth metals, plus hydrogen and helium." Cut all after the first comma and merge the remaining with any previous sentence.
- If you are going to do that, then I think you need to explain "s-block". WP:TECHNICAL—RJH (talk)
  - Saying what other elements are in doesn't either. Maybe, "This group lies in the s-block of the periodic table, because all elements in the series have in their outermost electronic shell only one s-electron"?

There are well characterized and Francium, which should be well-characterized and francium.

"Ununennium (element 119) is likely to continue this trend, with electrons 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 1, or [Uuo]8s1, but this is unconfirmed.[3] Similarly, unhexennium (element 169) is also likely to continue this trend, with electrons 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, 32, 18, 8, 1, or [Uho]9s1, but this is unconfirmed.[4]" point anywhere this is only a theory led from Aufbau principle and not experimental data, and that there're calculations saying so not, I'm sure you know about extended periodic table, get the data from there, and say about unhexpentium as a possible, eighth alkali metal (and some thing about ununpentium as the seventh).

There are two paras in the middle of the Chemical about hydrogen. Section Hydrogen is for that, since the elements isn't an alkali metal. Pass the mentioned text there.

"The properties, history, production, occurence, applications, biological occurences of hydrogen are all significantly different from those of the alkali metals, which is another reason why hydrogen is usually not included into the alkali metals."

I'd argue about the third one, but this should become a full-length text.

History is to be rewritten.

The discoveries of the alkali metals were made in very similar fashion, as shown below, except for the heaviest one, francium.

Wait, is this necessary? You've got the whole section, so maybe better remove this

"Johan August Arfwedson discovered the alkali metal lithium in petalite.[9]"

Expand to 4-5 sentences. First para in lithium aricle, section History may be useful. The same also applies to Na, K, Rb and Cs.

The future expansion takes too much place. But a subsection for future expansion only would probably do without cutting (but reorganizing).

I'll write more later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now beginning to work on this. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production. Too much francium and way too little rubidium and caesium. I think I don't need to explain my words.

Occurrence. Too much francium (in fact, only one sentence isn't OK, "Francium can also be synthesized in the nuclear reaction 197Au + 18O → 210Fr + 5 n.[36]" that's cool, but unless you say it happens in nature with a proof, this isn't for occurrence section) and way too little rubidium and caesium. Also, lithium and sodium need expansion.

Applications. Way too little all of them (even francium)

Biological occurrences. Would "biological roles" suit better? Anyway, too little again about all (even francium). I'd write it like that:

Sodium and potassium are essential elements for life, as they... so on
Lithium is... so on.
Rubidium is...so on. Caesium, similar to rubidium,... so on.
Francium is...so on.

Also, I'd like you to mention how would francium behave in humans' bodies if it weren't radioactive.

And the last section would also be better if expanded.

also, I've just found... Their chemical reactions with water are as follows: Alkali metal + water → Alkali metal hydroxide + hydrogen gas. For a typical example (M represents an alkali metal): 2 M (s) + 2 H2O (l) → 2 MOH (aq) + H2 (g)

Why "for a typical example" if it's already generalized? If there were K, Na, Li, Rb, Cs or Fr, it'd be OK. Or without "For a typical example" it'd also do. (also, doesn't it sound stupid? shouldn't it be either "for example" or "An illustrative example would be (or, if you want so much, typical)") Fix it :)

As some finishing words I'd like to see rubidium and caesium (lithium, sodium and potassium, sure, too) having at least twice more info than Fr on anything.

Thanks, R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

The Production section needs a little shake-up. Even the first sentence (the alkali metals are usually produced using similar processes) is really bad: derivatives of the word "use" are used twice when they should be used once, and the "usually" indicates ambiguity when it is not supposed to be there.
Anything related to hydrogen can and must be ousted; it is not an alkali metal.
- Most of the text related to hydrogen is a discussion about why hydrogen isn't usually considered an alkali metal. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency! That Applications section needs the "uses" next to rubidium out!
...OK, enough humor. Finished. FRE YWA 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stone's comments

The fact that potassium, rubidium, (francium not discovered at that point) are radioactive and the believe that caesium is also radioactive made the group strange compared to the others. This is a nice point for the history section.

Goldschmidt classification andIncompatible element are two points which might be good for occurrence section --Stone (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]