Talk:Astatine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, and it is the first article I will be reviewing as an official member of WP:ELEM.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No images, so not applicable to this GA review

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images of astatine, unfortunately, are virtually nonexistant, and I doubt we will ever get an image for this element. I will let this slide, but if an image ever becomes available, it needs to be inserted into this article ASAP.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Characteristics

• 1st para, second sentence: Source for number?

  My OR based on simple laws. I don't insist on the inclusion, removed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• 2nd para, first sentence: When you say "it," what are you referring to?

  I thought that that sentence was quite clear; removed, however, in order not to confuse anyone.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• 3rd para, first sentence: Restates info in 2nd para, last sentence.

  It doesn't actually. The last sentence of the second para says nothing about that it's a solid.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than these three points, seems good

History

• 3rd para, last sentence: Three out of four what?

  Fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than this one point, seems good

Natural Occurrence

• 1st para, second sentence: "This rarity is explained with that..." is a very awkward phrase.

  Fixed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• 2nd para, last sentence: "...Has a daughter of..." is strange wording.

  Fixed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than these, seems good

---

Many printed and online sources say that the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust is "probably less than one ounce" or "about one ounce" or the equivalent in metric units ("about 25 grams"). However, no derivation is shown by these sources. Perhaps the originator of this estimate applied the crustal abundance calculation to the whole mass of the Earth, including the core and mantle, which would yield a total of 24 grams in the entire Earth. However, that would still be a questionable figure because the abundance of ancestor isotopes in the whole mass of the Earth is probably quite different from that of the crust.

The book Holleman-Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry correctly gives a figure of "3·10-24 % by weight" (3 x 10-26) as the crustal abundance and "no more than 45 milligrams" (0.045 gram) as the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust. A detailed calculation is available at http://ataridogdaze.com/science/As-Earth-crust.html

Gwc100 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chemical reactivity and compounds

• 2nd para, second sentence: Sentence seems overly long, could be split into multiple sentences.

  OK, done.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• 3rd para, second-to-last sentence: Seems overly short, and has non-encyclopedic wording.

  I'm afraid, astatine is not iodine, there's not that much info. Some things known for stable elements compounds are principally unknown for astatine. And I guess if there's more info on the compounds' properties, it'll be very technical and uninteresting (bond lengths, molecular structures, so on. To be honest, I have searched and haven't seen such info yet). This is not a phenomenon: the FA of francium has no Compounds section at all (not because it an alkali metal; its upper neighbor caesium has one). Non-encyclopedic writing is a problem I will not deny, but to be honest, I don't see it. What's exactly wrong? What could I do?

  I have reworded the part "has seen the light". This was what I was talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this, I should have specified the exact words. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than these two points, all is good

Production and uses

This whole section seems good for a GA. It probably would not be OK for a FA, but for a GA it is fine.

Isotopes

Nothing wrong here, probably could get past even an FA review.

Lead

All statements backed up at some point in main body.

As soon as the chemical reactivity and compounds section is fixed, this should pass the GA review! Yankeesrule3 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am now ready to pass this GA review for Astatine. Great job on the article! Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)