This review is transcluded from Talk:Radium/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I worry that the infobox image (Radium226.jpg) is misleading, because I'm not sure if we can directly see any Radium in the first place there? The viewer will think that the piece shown is Radium, but it is not. Maybe it is better to leave it without an image, or to use the "Radium-226 radiation source" image instead. The Radium226.jpg could be used later in the article. In any case, it needs a proper caption explaining what can be seen.
  • I'm not certain about the provenance of the image. Working on figuring out how to change the caption.
    • If we believe the description provided by the uploader, you are seeing Ra electroplated on Cu. So the visible part would be the radium, which makes sense as it does not show the colour of copper. This would be similar to the picture of Tc that we use, which is Tc-plated Au. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Thanks for adding the caption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• When radium decays, it emits ionizing radiation as a by-product, which can excite fluorescent chemicals and cause radioluminescence. – But isn't that the case for any ionizing radiation? The fluorescence and radioluminescence are not specific for radium, so why mention it here (and not other effects, like health effects)?
  • These properties are particularly important to the history of radium. Relatively few other elements that emit ionizing radiation were used for this property. Its toxicity is mentioned immediately afterwards (with an added note on why it's so toxic).
    • Ok I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What are "Radium watch hands"? Needs link or explanation.
  • Is "Watch hands coated with radium paint" more descriptive?
    • Yes, that adds extra clarity, I would change to that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pure radium is a volatile silvery-white metal, although its lighter congeners calcium, strontium, and barium have a slight yellow tint. This tint rapidly vanishes on exposure to air, yielding a black layer of what is probably radium nitride (Ra3N2). – I can't follow here: How can the yellow tint in calcium, strontium, and barium result in radium nitride?
  • I've tried to clarify this by stating that it's radium's lustre (as stated in the NRC report) that becomes a black layer, rather than the "tint".

• though mesothorium 1 in particular was still used for some time, with a footnote explaining that it referred to 228Ra. – Was that only in a single paper? Is there a seconsary source for the claim that mesothorium was still used? If not, I suggest to remove this.
  • I believe I added this statement when searching literature for this particular phrase; it may have been a preference of the author and not representative of the field as a whole. I can remove it here.

• Some of radium-226's decay products received historical names including "radium", ranging from radium A to radium G, with the letter indicating approximately how far they were down the chain from their parent 226Ra: Radium emanation = 222Rn, Ra A = 218Po, Ra B = 214Pb, Ra C = 214Bi, Ra C1 = 214Po, Ra C2 = 210Tl, Ra D = 210Pb, Ra E = 210Bi, Ra F = 210Po, and Ra G = 206Pb. – Again, do we have a secondary source here (one that is recent enough to give an overview over historical terminology)? If not, that could be a sign that this is not relevant enough for this general article.
  • I found some broader sources, but not broad enough to justify keeping this in the article for the element in general. As such the whole paragraph is moved to isotopes of radium, but the editors more involved in radiochemistry may choose to get rid of it altogether.

• In the early history of the study of radioactivity – I would say that this entire paragraph does not really fit in. It is a bit difficult to follow, as it requires knowledge that is only introduced in the next paragraph. If you want to keep it, move to the History section?
  • Moved to isotopes of radium.

• and always exhibits its group oxidation state – I found this wording to be strange; can it possibly not exhibit its group oxidation state of +2?
  • This has been changed to just reflect what is stated by the NRC.

• half-reaction, 6s and 6p electrons, isomorphous, isostructural, complexation – these do need wikilinks or in-text explanations.
  • These have been linked to: half-reaction, electron configuration, Isomorphism (crystallography), isostructural, coordination complex (reworded slightly).

• Radium oxide (RaO) has not been characterized well past its existence, despite oxides being common compounds for the other alkaline earth metals – remove "past its existence", I think it only confuses and does not really add anything?
  • Considering removing mention of radium oxide altogether as it barely seems to exist, but this sentence should be in better shape now.

• luminous – link, or does that just mean radioluminescence?
  • The literature is frustrating on this point. The cause of the luminescence is almost definitely due to the excitation of nitrogen in the air as stated in the next paragraph for radium bromide, but no such thing is ever stated for the chloride.

• rose color – link to rose (color)
  • Done.

• In July 1898, while studying pitchblende, – Why mention again that they were studying pitchblende? It's still the same study, right?
  • I have to re-check the ACS source, but I believe this was a separate study. The phrasing is not clear on this.

• nuclear panels – what do you mean with that?
  • Referring to "instrument panels" as in "nuclear instrument" - the latter wording isn't replicated in the source so it's been changed in the article to reflect that.

• Section Commercial use – The section title is too broad here, it surely would also include the glowing paint discussed in the previous section.
  • I renamed it to "Quackery", as that's most of what it contains - though that could be a contentious title, I'm sure there is a better one out there.

• In the U.S., nasal radium irradiation was also administered to children to prevent middle-ear problems or enlarged tonsils from the late 1940s through the early 1970s. – Why isn't this placed under "medical uses"? Isn't it a medical use?
  • The implication is that this use falls under "quackery", though the literature doesn't seem to agree with that. It's been moved.

• Radium (usually in the form of radium chloride or radium bromide) was used in medicine to produce radon gas, which in turn was used as a cancer treatment; for example, several of these radon sources were used in Canada in the 1920s and 1930s. However, many treatments that were used in the early 1900s are not used anymore because of the harmful effects radium bromide exposure caused. – But you said that the treatments use Radon, not radium bromide?
  • Radon is produced by radium in the form of radium bromide (or radium chloride). It would not be possible to perform a radon exposure treatment without first being exposed to the radium precursor. I could state that again if it's unclear.

• This was the same method used to treat Henrietta Lacks, the host of the original HeLa cells, for cervical cancer. – Context for this information is unclear. When was it? Did it also involve Kelly?
  • The Kelly paragraph was out of place and was merged to Johns Hopkins Hospital.

• Structure of "Medical uses" section seems a bit random: first you discuss cancer treatment, then the uses in genetics research, then cancer treatment again.
  • I tried to move this around a bit, now that it's "medical and research uses".

• Howard Atwood Kelly, one of the founding physicians of Johns Hopkins Hospital, – you place a lot of emphasis here on Kelly. I worry about undue weight; maybe the paragraph could be more general/broader?
  • Excised as described above.

• In medical uses, you show the Radior ad, but none of that is discussed in the article?
  • It should be an example of the products related to radioactive quackery mentioned in the previous paragraphs - it's been moved and given more context, though it isn't as relevant as it could be.

• was the silver mines – "were" the silver mines?
  • This sentence gave me trouble, it's now "the silver mines [...] were the only large sources."

• The formation of an Austrian monopoly and the strong urge of other countries to have access to radium led to a worldwide search for uranium ores. The United States took over as leading producer in the early 1910s. The carnotite sands in Colorado provide some of the element, but richer ores are found in the Congo and the area of the Great Bear Lake and the Great Slave Lake of northwestern Canada. Neither of the deposits is mined for radium but the uranium content makes mining profitable.[34][69] – The first sentences are about the early 20th century, but the last two are written in present tense. How do they relate to the history?
  • The last two sentences were of unclear relevance, especially since this is veering more into "uranium" territory than radium specifically, which is not even obtained from uranium ores in the current time period (According to later references). Removed.

• In 1954, the total worldwide supply of purified radium amounted to about 5 pounds (2.3 kg).[44] The chief radium-producing countries are Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and Russia. – Same issue here. You describe the history but then there is a sentence in present tense?
  • I've tried to rearrange this to be less confusing time-wise.

• The metal is isolated by reducing radium oxide with aluminium metal in a vacuum at 1,200 °C.[30] – This sentence seems out of place. You discuss how radium is produced further up in the section; shouldn't this be there, too?
  • It's now up there. Meant to imply that the current method of isolating the metal is this method as it is done in 2018, but it is better placed in the preceding paragraph.

• Symmetry breaking forces – what is this; wikilink or explain?
  • I've linked it - the modern applications of radium are I admit somewhat beyond my expertise.

• At the time of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, the "tolerance level" for workers was set at 0.1 micrograms of ingested radium.[87] – Sentence seems out-of-place and out-of-context where it currently is. It should be discussed together with modern levels and regulations, no?
  • It's in a more appropriate location now, though the wording was rearranged in other parts, mainly related to the NRC.

• and it must be handled in tight glove boxes with significant airstream circulation – this regulation applies where? Worldwide?
  • I got rid of that whole paragraph. The description is from Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry and it's quite thin on this element.

• The world's largest concentration of 226Ra is stored within the Interim Waste Containment Structure, approximately 9.6 mi (15.4 km) north of Niagara Falls, New York.[89] – What is meant by the "largest concentration"? Is this extracted radium, or radium content of atomic waste?
  • This is referring to "radioactive residue", most likely waste materials. I'm not certain how relevant this is to the article, considering that. Edit: Removed.

• In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency-defined Maximum Contaminant Level for radium is 5 pCi/L for drinking water;[90] the Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not specifically set exposure limits for radium, and instead limits ionizing radiation exposure in units of roentgen equivalent man based on the exposed area of the body. Radioactive material exposure is regulated more closely by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,[91] which sets the exposure limit to 226Ra at 0.01 μCi. Outside of the United States, exposure to radium is regulated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the World Health Organization.[92] – This gives a lot of details about the US, but no details about the rest of the world. I think it should instead focus on WHO regulations, maybe followed by some country-specific regulations (including, but not limited to, the US). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dug into this and came up with a lot of info from the IAEA and the ICRP. I could go more in depth on it but what it boils down to is that most of the recommendations come from the ICRP, which are disseminated through regional and international organizations and eventually form into country-specific regulations. It's just that most of the English-language information talks about the US regulations (location and literature access at my US-based institution probably also influences my searches).

Sources spot check

• Radium oxide (RaO) has not been characterized well past its existence, despite oxides being common compounds for the other alkaline earth metals – Can't find this in the source.
• In the mid-1920s, a lawsuit was filed against the United States Radium Corporation by five dying "Radium Girls" – Can't find this in the source.
  • The source for this is used several paragraphs on. I've copied it over. Warrants review of the rest...
• What makes source 55 a reliable source? Looks like a personal website?
  • Assuming this refers to dissident-media.org, I am looking into it.

Confirming source-text integrity (Nominator)

• This is my review of the sources, with the numbering according to this revision of the article: Reconrabbit 15:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: The article still needs work to reach GA level. The chemistry content is good and well-written, but the problems are further down in the article. The main weakness seems to be the applications and historical uses sections. The sources spot-check unfortunately did not pass. I would need to ask you to check the other sources yourself, and when you believe that everything is ok, I would have to do another spot check. If you think you can solve everything within two weeks, I am happy to keep the review on hold; if you need longer, I would be happy to pick up the review again in a new GA nomination if you like. Let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize in this review that I made a lot of assumptions about the previous authors of this article, and that I also fell into a lot of mistakes trying to maintain the same structure, ending up with weird chronology and missing sourcing in the middle of paragraphs. Organization is tough and I make assumptions about what is obvious and what isn't. In the coming week I will do my utmost to address the concerns raised, then start on the process of checking all the sources I did not add myself. I'll be in a better spot to say where I can bring this article by 18 October. Reconrabbit 02:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: After working through all of the recommendations, I'm mostly content with how the text has come out, but would like to know how it looks and if there are still issues of undue weight. I believe I should be able to review the sources used within the week but will first evaluate if I even have access to a lot of the old references first. Thanks. Reconrabbit 21:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work! Once we are confident about the text-source integrity, I can promote this. One point though: which are not enforced by the IAEA but are freely available for adoption by members of the organization. – That certainly does not mean that the regulation is only freely available to members but not to non-members? Maybe just remove that part? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, great work on the sources! I am wondering now if you really have to check very single source. If you checked a large sample of sources that do not have issues, maybe that's a sign that others are probably ok, too. Checking every single one is best, of course, especially if you plan to take this to WP:FAC at some point, but I won't require that in this GAN. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to narrow my focus then to the areas I did not change majorly in my work on the article, those being "Bulk properties" (already checked except for [3]), "Chemistry", "Occurrence", "Luminescent paint", and "Modern applications". Reconrabbit 00:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jens Lallensack: I went through these areas and did a survey of text-source integrity, with changes in a few areas. I marked the sources I couldn't access with though I have some confidence in the reliability of those sources if not a direct quote for each statement. I also had trouble with [70] because it's been a while since I studied field theory and if that's ground for removing that information or seeking other counsel then please let me know. Reconrabbit 20:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Thank you for your comprehensive revisions. This is been a big chunk of work, and a very important contribution. I checked some of the sources and all seems fine. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]