Jump to content

Talk:Uranium: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to Talk:Uranium/Archive 2
URFA review
Line 67: Line 67:


The description in the image alt-text says the gloves are brown, but they're orange. Was whoever wrote this colorblind or have I stumbled on another "gold dress" scenario? There's also a minor typo. I would fix all that myself, but I don't know how to edit that text. --[[User:JDspeeder1|JDspeeder1]] ([[User talk:JDspeeder1|talk]]) 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The description in the image alt-text says the gloves are brown, but they're orange. Was whoever wrote this colorblind or have I stumbled on another "gold dress" scenario? There's also a minor typo. I would fix all that myself, but I don't know how to edit that text. --[[User:JDspeeder1|JDspeeder1]] ([[User talk:JDspeeder1|talk]]) 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

== [[WP:URFA/2020]] ==

I am reviewing this very old FA as part of [[WP:URFA/2020]], an effort to determine whether old [[WP:FA|featured articles]] still meet the [[WP:WIAFA|featured article criteria]]. The original nominator at FAC has not edited in years, the article has not been updated and has not kept up with standards, the readable prose size is 40% larger than the version that passed FAC (meaning there is a good deal of unvetted content), and I'm leaving a notice that a [[WP:FAR|Featured article review]] is needed at [[WP:FARGIVEN]]. Reviewing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&oldid=1053863451 this version]:
* There are several unaddressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uranium&oldid=1061303784#Pourbaix_diagrams items on this talk page].
* There is [[MOS:SANDWICH]]ing and a general jamup of images.
* There is considerable text that has not been updated since the 2006 FAC, sample only: {{tq|It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of uranium exists in ore reserves that are economically viable at US$59 per lb of uranium,[76] while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction).[77] Prices went from about $10/lb in May 2003 to $138/lb in July 2007. This has caused a big increase in spending on exploration,[76] with US$200 million being spent worldwide in 2005, a 54% increase on the previous year.[77]}}
* The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&oldid=1053863451#Supplies Supplies section] has been tagged as needing update for five years.
* There is uncited text.
* There are short choppy one-sentence paras, eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&oldid=1053863451#Natural_concentrations here].
* See also needs pruning.
* There are incomplete citations (all citations need a publisher, websites need a last access date)
* There is serious overlinking (you can install [[User:Evad37/duplinks-alt]] to see dup links)
* There are [[WP:MEDRS]] issues, eg {{tq|Uranium miners have a higher incidence of cancer. An excess risk of lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners, for example, has been documented and linked to their occupation.[52]}}
* There are dead links, eg "uranium". Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group, Inc.
* Cited to 2001 ... still true ? The gas centrifuge process, where gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) is separated by the difference in molecular weight between 235UF6 and 238UF6 using high-speed centrifuges, is the cheapest and leading enrichment process.[30]
Similar is found everywhere one looks; a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed here, along with prose checking and a MOS tuneup; this is just a starter list. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:02, 20 December 2021

Featured articleUranium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starUranium is part of the Actinides series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
September 29, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Pourbaix diagrams

Under pourbaix diagrams there are two diagrams that are pH/fraction which shouldn´t be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:5128:557:C665:6995:304B (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The production and mining section graphs are 10y out of date

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Production_and_mining Does anyone have good sources about the aggregated worldwide production/mining of Uranium which can help in updating it? I could (re)make the graph if I have the numbers. :-)

EnergyIntel (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking as Vital Article

I was wondering why Uranium is NOT ranked among the top 1000 vital articles altough it seems to be in excellent condition. Oil, Gas, Coal is but not Uranium. Although it is a major Energy source in many countries. I don't know yet how this is decided so it might be a noob question but I'd love to see the reasoning. For the ranking see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Current_total_(1,001_articles)

EnergyIntel (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium is a level four vital article, and nuclear power is a level three vital article like coal. CassandraRC7 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black light?

Doesn't uranium show up naturally under a black light, or is that just for Uranium glass? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium itself is not fluorescent, but glass with uranyl nitrate in it is. CassandraRC7 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image alt-text needs copyediting

The description in the image alt-text says the gloves are brown, but they're orange. Was whoever wrote this colorblind or have I stumbled on another "gold dress" scenario? There's also a minor typo. I would fix all that myself, but I don't know how to edit that text. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. The original nominator at FAC has not edited in years, the article has not been updated and has not kept up with standards, the readable prose size is 40% larger than the version that passed FAC (meaning there is a good deal of unvetted content), and I'm leaving a notice that a Featured article review is needed at WP:FARGIVEN. Reviewing this version:

  • There are several unaddressed items on this talk page.
  • There is MOS:SANDWICHing and a general jamup of images.
  • There is considerable text that has not been updated since the 2006 FAC, sample only: It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of uranium exists in ore reserves that are economically viable at US$59 per lb of uranium,[76] while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction).[77] Prices went from about $10/lb in May 2003 to $138/lb in July 2007. This has caused a big increase in spending on exploration,[76] with US$200 million being spent worldwide in 2005, a 54% increase on the previous year.[77]
  • The Supplies section has been tagged as needing update for five years.
  • There is uncited text.
  • There are short choppy one-sentence paras, eg here.
  • See also needs pruning.
  • There are incomplete citations (all citations need a publisher, websites need a last access date)
  • There is serious overlinking (you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to see dup links)
  • There are WP:MEDRS issues, eg Uranium miners have a higher incidence of cancer. An excess risk of lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners, for example, has been documented and linked to their occupation.[52]
  • There are dead links, eg "uranium". Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group, Inc.
  • Cited to 2001 ... still true ? The gas centrifuge process, where gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) is separated by the difference in molecular weight between 235UF6 and 238UF6 using high-speed centrifuges, is the cheapest and leading enrichment process.[30]

Similar is found everywhere one looks; a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed here, along with prose checking and a MOS tuneup; this is just a starter list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]