Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ununseptium/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 [1].

---

Ununseptium

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a rare synthetic chemical element. That alone may seem scary for some readers, yet the best of my efforts have been applied to make this article as readable as it could be. After the first FAC, it was not promoted on the basis of poor prose quality; the article has been improved and updated since then, but the second FAC hasn't even scored enough attention to stand a chance. Now's a third time; hopefully, it'll bring me luck! --R8R (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I gave it a look through and corrected a few grammatical things: otherwise, I don't see any problems. (Disclaimer: I did a substantial amount of work on this with R8R in 2012, but all of the more recent work was done by them.) Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ...although: Comment The alt text for the Zagrebaev chart doesn't match its actual contents. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

    A good catch. I've written an actual alt text for the pic.--R8R (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is no claimed proposed name yet? Helholzium? Nergaal (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  I can see this article was written by some Becky Ferreira, who I don't know, but she doesn't work for GSI or anything close to that, as I can see she is a columnist writing about pretty much everything. The word "helmhotzium" only appears once, in the following para: "It remains to be seem whether the IUPAPC will finally allow ununseptium into the official element club. But if it does get the green light, I can take a pretty good stab at what its real name will be. Given that the majority of the other transactinides are named after the relevant research centers, let's assume this superheavy newcomer will be called helmholtzium. You heard it here first." This doesn't make me want to add that to the article, especially labeled as a "proposed name."--R8R (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  Leaving aside how the GSI announced it confirmed the discovery in Dubna, rather than claimed it did discover it first -- why would an element be named after those who confirmed its discovery rather than the actual discoverers?--R8R (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean necessary that source, but were any of the researchers quoted to propose some name? Something like for 118. Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked and didn't find any suggestions for E117: R8R told me before that they think it's bad karma to discuss naming in advance now (^_-)-☆. For E115 they dared to suggest moscovium (http://in.rbth.com/economics/technology/2015/08/25/element-115-in-moscows-name_392319), and we should add that (but that's a long-standing suggestion from 2012: see this, using the Russian name московий). No news for E113 from the Russians, but many suggestions from Japan. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much so. I read it once in a Russian-language source, quoted by a senior Dubna official. (However, I think "the bad karma" also meant how there might be premature arguments over how to name the elements.) --R8R (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So did any go on record to say that they won't disclose any proposal because of bad luck? And a side-thing, I thought proposals for elements can be reused for others (i.e. Mk was suggested for 116 but rejected so I thought it can't be used for any other). Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't find it now. I think, though, it is an issue worked around for now. Like they were not confirmed the element will be recognized, so they hare hadn't caught by that point. (Even now.)--R8R (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I am under impression "moscovium" has been discussed as a name for 116, but not actually suggested to the JWP. (Not to mention how we have rutherfordium as a name for the element 104, even though Berkley originally wanted it to be the name for the element 106.)--R8R (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, didn't Berkeley propose Rf for E104, and then IUPAC 1996 shifted it to E106 to avoid naming an element after Seaborg? Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the svg diagram again: can you at least it rotate it 180 degrees? so higher values are on the right side? Nergaal (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, why not. OK now?--R8R (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems better, but I think the atom labels should remain on left? Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I won't fight to death for it, but I think the labels are better off now. If we do the change, then the legend (85At and 117Uus) will still be aligned to the right from their vertical lines, while the electron level labels will be aligned to the left from theirs, and this difference may bring some make the pic a little messy. This is the problem about making the pic oriented to the right.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• The isotopes numbers in the infobox are lacking a ref. Nergaal (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The refs are on the isotopes page, like they usually are for the element infoboxes. But I've copied them over. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time for another read. Much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Refs:

The last two dois don't seem to work. Also, for the book at least be consistent and give the full first names.

ref 2 add the doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3598-5 and page #

This may take a little time; skipping for now (but will be back for it soon)

I meant just add the pages for the used chapter, not all the single pages. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ref 6 the publisher seems to be GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH

This is equivalent to what we have now, except we have the thing we use is in English with their suggested spelling, and your thing is in German. (I am not all that great at inter-language things: does it mean we have to use the German version?) I tried to work this issue around, but I'm not all that good with citing sources, so just tell me how to fix this if I haven't done it right.

Whatever is now is ok. But I don't think you should have it as both author and publisher. Use just as publisher. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

8 is missing accessdate

12

16 is missing link or doi

20 author

29 doi

33 doi 10.1088/0954-3899/30/10/014

a few other refs in the 40s might have dois that should be added

of all the forties, only no. 48 may look problematic, but it appears it doesn't have a doi.

Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to fix these, except where I left a note.--R8R (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

42 seems a book series. format it so it is clear

per this 47 seems a bit off

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

54 probably needs a page range?

note c perhaps should mention/link metastable isotope?

Isn't that a little different? I mean, yes, both are excited states, but the metastable isotopes are called "metastable" because they last a while instead of promptly decaying like these ones. (Also, the metastable isotopes tend to emit gamma rays instead of having enough energy to expel neutrons out of the nucleus.) Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I would rather not. It's not the regular metastability we're talking about when an isomer decays into a lower-energy one, so it could create some confusion, which I would rather want to avoid.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think JWP and IUPAC acronyms could be mover after the intro for the sake of ease or reading.

Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Except for the penultimate comment, where I left a mote, i think everything's been dome by now.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support feel free to rc my comments. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one shortly. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• So will I. --John (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm going though, trying to improve the prose as I go, but I haven't looked at the FA standards. YBG (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sandbh

I read and edited as I went. So far it has been a much more interesting story than I was expecting. Only the Chemical section to go, then notes, the infobox and references. I have four minor questions seeking clarification of some statements and phrases which I'll post tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Finished the main body of the article. Will now look at notes etc. Only one question so far:

Discovery

• "The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days"

What does this mean? Cooled for 90 days? Cooled after 90 days? Why 90 days? Sandbh (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The idea is, berkelium underwent a 90-days-long cooling. I leave the choice of the exact wording to you. I haven't seen a paper giving this more than a brief mention like we do, but the answer coming to my mind would be, they couldn't just cool it once, because it's radioactive and it heats itself, especially given there were radioactive by-products, which were especially intense at heating (but also decaying away faster than Bk), and it took them some time to decay away.--R8R (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's good. Sandbh (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notes and info box done; only references to go. Sandbh (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In the references, sometimes the first and second names of authors are spelled out in full e.g. Audi, Georges; Bersillon, Olivier; Blachot, Jean; at other times all there is the initials e.g. Jepson, B. E.; Shockey, G. C. I'd like to see a consistent approach to the way the names of authors are presented. Sandbh (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're pointing at. I've made some considerations on whether we should use full names or initials, and I think we'll be better off with the latter (even though I originally wanted to go for full names), mainly because full names are somewhat problematic for non-English names (in particular, Russian ones and the patronymics; and there may be similar/other issues for names of any other ethnicity). I hope I'll get to fix that sometime later today.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I've found an opportunity to do the standardization work; if I missed anything, feel free to point me at it.--R8R (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support subject to the reference formatting being addressed. Sandbh (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John

I took a look at this last night and this morning started hacking at the prose, which needs some work. Some comments have therefore already been addressed.

• oon-oon-SEP-tee-əm; I know we have discussed this before. Remind me, what does having the respell alongside the IPA pronunciation guide add?

  Okay, as long as we're not going for another debate on this. It's okay to have these either in or out per WP:MOS/Pronunciation, and they are actually easier to read than the IPA keys, so I'd want them in (if I have both IPA and these respells in front of me, I'll use the latter for reference).

  What is the source for the "oon-oon" pronunciation? I know chemists who say "un-un" and I am sure I saw one source supporting "yoon-oon". If the pronunciation is important, it should come with strong sourcing. At present it has none. I still think that listing two separate systems for the pronunciation is overkill, and as you say it is optional whether to have it at all. If it is to be there it ought to be strongly sourced. --John (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  That's how the original 1979 IUPAC recommendations, which first established such naming, expect it to be pronounced. Quoting the recommendations, "The root 'un' is pronounced with a long 'u', to rhyme with 'moon'. In the element names each root is to be pronounced separately." I'll add that to the article.--R8R (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you, that's genuinely interesting. I still think it has undue prominence on the article but at least it is sourced now. --John (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I trimmed down "Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels, from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists in the field, who call it "element 117", with the symbol (117) or 117." This text seems to have been added to a lot of these superheavy articles. Most readers will not find the detailed history of the use of the nomenclature all that interesting, and it seems to be contradicted later on. (more to come) --John (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Why not, it's not a move I would argue against. Thanks for taking part, much appreciated; waiting for your comments.--R8R (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  I appreciate the work that is being done to clean up the prose but I find it hard to aim at a moving target, so I will leave this review for a week or so until the work is stabilised. Ping me if I forget. --John (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  @John: R8R Gtrs and I are done, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike

Well done for tackling such a complex scientific topic, and producing a very good article on it! I've got a few queries/requests for clarifications before I'm ready to support the promotion of this article to FA status:

• Is there a case for the article being at Element 117 rather than Ununseptium, given the temporary nature of that name? (I'm not advocating either way, I'm just asking out of curiosity)

  You actually have a great point here. Originally, the articles were just established this way. I proposed to change this, and The proposal has gained support within WP:Elements, but the process died after I requested a renaming per consensus, but the process was comducted via a regular articles to move (or whatever it is called), and even the supporters said, move, but some other way, so oppose for now. Now that you bring this issue up, it may be reconsidered.

• "fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam" - this needs clarification, as it's not the beams that are being fused, but the particles in the beam and target.

  I think the phrase itself is okay, but I added a one-phrase-long description of the whole process.

• "The Russian team sought to use berkelium..." - it would be good to say why a large neutron excess is important for the synthesis of heavy elements in this paragraph.

  Yeah, the info was somewhat spattered across the section; indeed, a good catch, thank you.

• "The berkelium was subsequently cooled for 90 days" - to what temperature?

  i don't know. Not a single paper I have seen says this. I may give this another look if you want me to, but personally, I don't think it's important: after all, the thing was radioactive, so it heated itself up.

• "because the half-life of berkelium-249, the only isotope of berkelium that can be produced in weighable quantities,[13] is only 330 days: after that time, half the berkelium produced would have decayed away" - this might read better if you separate out the sub-point about berkelium-249 from the half-life point, and condensed the text about the half-life.

  I've reworked the text to make shorter sentences. (Except I don't really want to cut the "what a half-life is" part: it is intended not for you and me, it is intended for those who have less knowledge on the topic.)

• "the JINR particle accelerator" - is that the name of the accelerator, or should that be "the particle accelerator at JINR"?

  Why, your suggestion is good, I'll use it.

• "All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown" - I think these decay products need to be given in the text, rather than relying on a figure to display them.

  I'd rather disagree. The exact list of the subproducts is not important for the story of element 117, which is why I avoid it. A picture would not hurt; mentioning them in the text could possibly distract a reader from the more important thing given in the article.

• "Ununseptium is expected to be a member of group 17 in the periodic table" - why?

  The obvious answer would be, you expect period 7 to be 32 elements long because of the current theory of electronic structures of elements, especially the Aufbau principle, or Madelung/Klechkovsky rule (these three are basically the same thing), astatine is element 85, so the element directly under it should be element 85+32=117. A more detailed answer would be, the more sophisticated computational data also predicts this will happen (which we discuss in the body of the article).

• Is there a convention in the field to use Celsius for temperatures? I would have thought that Kelvin would be a more natural unit of temperature to use.

  Nah. Either is fine. We're not talking about superlow temperatures, and we're not writing a super technical text (as you may see, I've done my best to make it as accessible to everyone as possible). There is no special benefit from using Kelvin here, so it is not used.

• Are there any future plans to produce more of these atoms that could be mentioned/referenced in this article?

  I can't find any. The synthesis was indeed a very tedious and difficult work. Especially now that the element synthesis has been repeated, and it should be recognized soon. And this is not the most interesting element to try: from a point of view of chemistry, 114 and 118 are the most interesting ones, and for any nuclear stability issues, even-numbered elements are preferable.

• Are the external links worth keeping in the article, or would they be better used as references instead?

  No. The press release is already used as a reference; and I'm not a fan of the Periodic Table of Videos, so won't regret losing it.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article.--R8R (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.