Wikipedia:Peer review/Boron group/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boron group[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is now a good enough article and because I really want to weed out the mistakes before going any further with the article. Please comment on anything wrong in the article and I will start to adress these issues once put here. And the status of the article is a C-class but is on the verge of B-class and this is also a reason to why I put this article up for peer review, for I believe that it can become much better with some constructive critizism about it. Thanks :) Geo7777 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for exampls and ideas to follow. There are two GAs that seem like they would be good models: Period 1 element and Group 4 element. There are no group of element FAs, but there are 17 element FAs at Category:FA-Class chemical elements articles
  • There is a disambiguation link finder tool in the tool box on this PR page. It finds 9 dab links which need to be fixed.
  • Biggest problem is that the article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of hydrides has no refs and needs at least one. Or (In2O3) is nearly amphoteric, and thallium(III) oxide (Tl2O3) is a stronger base. Each of these are stable compounds, but thallium oxide is shown to decompose at temperatures higher than 100°C. also needs a ref. As does this The exact same can go for electricity because boron is not good at conducting electricity at cool temperatures but is good at high temperatures, and the other metals conduct it. This is in coordance with the long standing generalization that all metals conduct heat and electricity better than most non-metals. This also needs a ref In addition, all of the isotopes stated above are found in nature in macroscopic quantities at any time. This group is special with its isotopes because it contains some of the heaviest stable isotopes ever found. Only lead has a heavier stable isotope. In theory, though, all elements with an isotope above atomic mass > 40 is supposed to be unstable to decays such as spontaneous fission and alpha decay. Also in theory, all elements with an isotope below atomic mass > 40 is supposed to be energetically stable to all forms of decay except proton decay which has not yet been observed ever. as does the first paragraph of History.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The current lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
  • For ideas to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything about Biology or Tocicity in the lead.
  • Article has a lot of typos - what is "ccordance"? This is in coordance with the long standing generalization that all metals conduct heat and electricity better than most non-metals.
  • Be consistent on spelling - is it British or American (pick one and stick with it). Since then, around 13 atoms have been synthesized to date with various isotopes being characteristed.[26] (assume "characteristed" is a typo for the British spelling "characterised", but "synthesized" is the American spelling).
  • Watch WP:WEASEL formulations and avoid passive voice where possible. So It has been noticed that the elements in the boron group have similar physical properties. could just be The elements in the boron group have similar physical properties.
  • Watch for contradictions But, due to the fact that all of their atomic numbers are odd, each of them have only two stable isotopes, and aluminium and indium only have one, making them monoisotopic. each have two stable isotopes is not true, since two have only one stable isotope.
  • Watch for WP:OVERLINKing - my rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and once in the body, each on first appearance.
  • I would present information consistently in the article - for example natural abundances are given as percentages, as parts per million, and for thallium not at all.
  • There are lots of very good resources available - I would not use Enyclopedia Brittanica as a reference.
  • Greenwood and Earnshaw's book "Chemistry of the Elements" is a good source which is not used here.
  • My understanding was that fiberglass was often made from borosilicate glass - are you sure that A common application is the usage in fiberglass.[34] As an alternative to fiberglass, though, boron has had a rapidly expanding place in borosilicate glass, a different type of glass with its own advantages and disadvantages,...
  • Some of the compounds in "Some common chemical compounds of the boron group" seem to be errors - especially the gallium sulfides (one of which is a formula without sulfur). Another is GaS and then Ga2+S2- (which are the same thing). Or the gamma form of aluminum sulfide is shown, but no mention is made of alpha or beta
  • There is a tendency going down a group in the p-block elements for the oxidation state 2 less than the most common form to become more stable - here +3 is most common, but for thallium +1 is also common. I do not see any mention of this, but there should be (this is sometimes known as the inert s pair effect).
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]