Talk:Radon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleRadon was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 5, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 30, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 6, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
September 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 4, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 24, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
January 31, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 3, 2023Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Delisted good article

format[edit]

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 19:37, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 18:59, 10 July 2005).

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Radon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Radon the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.


Good Article Nomination[edit]

While this article does have a good amount of relevant information, there are several places where references are needed to back up evidence, and as such, its not quite ready for GA status. Its not far off though, so I'm putting it on hold until these things can be fixed.

  1. Bluelinks need to be added to the 'Applications' section.
  2. More references need to be added for the more 'non-standard' knowledge, such as death potential in the lead paragraph, and most if not all of the Applications and History sections.
  3. 'Radon therapy' section is already mentioned in 'Applications'; this only needs to be mentioned once.

Here is my generic GA review of the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):



  • Failed due to lack of progress with problems stated above. Smomo 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Name Radon[edit]

Guys -

One thing. I was on Marie Curie's wiki page and it said that she named two elements - polonium and radium. In this article it says that someone else named radium. Who can verify?

Emission spectra?[edit]

Doesn't it seem strange that the emission spectra of radon and radium almost look the exact same, but with a difference of a few extra lines? I haven't looked into the sources or databases for these spectra, so I don't know how accurate these spectra are. I've noticed some potential red flags regarding accuracy of these emission spectra images: the images were uploaded in 2013, and the author credits this program which mentions "spectrum data for nearly all the elements from Hydrogen to Uranium," which contradicts that author's uploads of transuranic emission spectra up to einsteinium.

I don't have any background knowledge on atomic physics research to say much else, so I'd like to hear your comments. @Double sharp, DePiep, ComplexRational, and Sandbh: Nrco0e (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked it against the pictures, but NIST has data: Rn spectral lines, Ra spectral lines. And NIST does indeed have data up to Es. Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See {{Infobox element/symbol-to-spectral-lines-image}} for image data central. AFAIK, we have them up to and including Es, and showing in its infobox. This ok then?
I cannot say anything about correctness of Ra, Rd. I'm waiting for any conclusion.
radon 86 Rn Spectra of Rn
radium 88 Ra Spectra of Ra
Some images are missing: Hg, At, Fr. Now added to the (mainspace) table. Should there be a clarifying text?
In general, I think the setup of all these images could be improved: now the full spectrum background is too overwhelming.
-DePiep (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An image of Radon for this article perhaps?[edit]

A few months ago, I stumbled across a website which provided images for some of the heavy actinide elements' images on Wikipedia. What I found on the website is an image of the element Radon. It seems like the gas was encased in a glass tube and there's only 1 reference at the bottom of the page, stating that the image was taken from a book. [1]http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/086Rn/Rn.htm

So I emailed the creator of the website - Mark Kness - about this image. He replied: "Looking at my cell[ul]ose-book version, I note the comment: 'Radioactive radon was placed on a background of zinc sulphide, thus causing it to slow with a yellow-green light'. The radon does seem to be enclosed in a glass tube. The green glow is from the ZnS, which is excited by the radiation from radon (and perhaps radon daughters), it is not directly from radon itself. I did not have anything to do with preparing this sample, so I can't really provide more details than that." And I was wondering if this image could be added to the infobox in the Radon article? SupercriticalXenon (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly not coming with the right license to use it here, and if it doesn't even show radon itself then I don't see why we would want to add it. Sometimes there is just no good image of things. --mfb (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph is repetitively redundant.[edit]

Oof. Half-life of 3.8 days is said three times. Part of the decay chain of U-238 and Th-232 is said twice. Being very rare is said twice. Will be around for billions more years is said twice. Decay chain ending in lead is said three times. This carries into the second paragraph a bit where being a decay product of uranium is mentioned again. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]