Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hassium/archive2

Hassium

Hassium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Hassium/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Hassium/archive2

Nominator(s): R8R, Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are free.
• Sandwiching between infobox and first images. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment

• Transcluding a significant prose section into a FAC seems questionable to me, and it prevents you from fixing the sandwiching problem. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Introduction_into_superheavy_elements. The main reason is that this info is relevant to basically all the heaviest elements on the table (102 and up), but it's also basically necessary to explain how these elements are really made in practice. Unfortunately, it seems that if we change the images to float right, they float under the infobox inside the next section, which isn't really better.

@R8R: What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I agree that floating right isn't better. in fact, doing it so would necessitate completely rearranging all the images in the article. Maybe we could move it lower (two paragraphs or so down) in the section so that it starts after the infobox ends?

@Buidhe: +1 to Double sharp. In an earlier review, I did suggest including this introduction to provide context for more sophisticated terms, and the transfusion came about as the simplest solution to for including the same pertinent background in 17 element articles (as it is equally relevant and helpful in all of them). ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

My take on that unfortunately, we're stuck with this sandwiching because any other alternative is either not feasible or worse encyclopedically (if that's a word). We do need the transcluded section because we need an introduction into what people find a complicated topic; our introduction is, I believe, a great way to start reading. We also need this introduction in 16 more articles and possibly even more in the future, hence it would be great to keep it in one place which would host all edits made to it rather than let the bunch slowly get less and less synchronized. And there isn't really anywhere else to add the pictures, and they are important for illustrating the transcluded section. We do need the first picture in that section, it is of paramount encyclopedic importance there. Moving the picture down the text simply moves the problem down the text. At my screen resolution of 2560x1440 there is no cure to this sandwiching.

I'm sorry it comes out this way but the other options are worse.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I also realize now that the infobox is even longer in some articles, sandwiching the entire section. I'd agree it's not ideal, but the alternatives would cost a useful illustration or more serious formatting issues, so I'm inclined to leave it as is now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Would it help if we put the image to the right, forcing it to follow any infobox? This could even be made optionally per article (using a parameter). -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It could exist as a parameter, but forcing these images below the infobox will (1) risk displaying the images outside their associated section (this would be even worse in articles such as rutherfordium with longer infoboxes) and (2) require rearranging all the images in the article to keep a left-right alteration. I'm not seeing a good way out. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from ComplexRational

I have made a few substantive edits to the article myself, but as documented in the talk page chronicles, most of my work on this article has been as a reviewer; it has been a pleasure to read and review it. It has definitely come a long way since the first FAC; it is clear and complete, does not leave burning questions, and seems much more understandable to a layperson (compared to the time of the first FAC), as much of the jargon is explained. That said, I would like to highlight a few more things before offering my support.

• The atomic number is the number of protons in an atomic nucleus. – anyone reading the article should know this; at most, a parenthesized definition such as "atomic number (number of protons)" is enough.

  Addendum: to avoid breaking the text flow (as pointed out by R8R, the next sentence should be shortened or cut as well; we don't need to define the more common terms in this article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Changed to a parenthesis. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've given it more thought and I don't see what can be done to help this without removing important information, but I'd like to hear from you if you think otherwise. You see, I want to mention the following points:

  • The heaviest element in nature is uranium;
  • Elements can be referred to by their atomic numbers;
  • The first element heavier than uranium was synthesized in 1940;
  • Elements through 101 were discovered in Berkeley;
  • Starting with element 102, a new contender emerged in Moscow/Dubna;
  • and so on.

  The current text seems optimal to me to make those points. Note j could be remade to also differentiate elements through 101 from elements 102 onward by their synthesis method.--R8R (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  It flows fairly well as is, but atomic number is mentioned earlier as well, and I don't believe a parenthetical definition would cost too much meaning or flow as opposed to the current standalone sentence for a basic definition. Either way could conceivably be workable; I agree with your points, but don't want to include an extra explanation if it is not necessary.

  This might turn out to be a matter of preference, but nothing is lacking either way, so I won't let this hold up my support. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've given it some more thought and I figured I could contract the text without compromising the ease of reading.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• was discovered in 1940 at the University of California in Berkeley, California, United States. – I do not believe the detail in note [j] is necessary. Since this section does not provide background information on the topic, the exact details of how neptunium was discovered are not important to this topic.

  OK, I've removed note j. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Let's talk about it some more. The point of that note was that that reaction was different from what we've described so far ("combines two other nuclei of unequal size" -- a neutron is not a nucleus, and the reaction itself isn't precisely in the same category, as I have described in that note), and a note seems suitable to point out this small difference.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'd prefer appending the sentence Elements through 101 were discovered... and stating there that neutron capture and alpha irradiation were used in these discoveries, and that they are not nuclear fusion per se. I feel this would flow better than a note, and not drop this extra bit of context.

  Sounds good but alpha particles do qualify as nuclei, so technically that is nuclear fusion?--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Technically it is, this change is just to differentiate these techniques from light-ion bombardment. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Now that I've thought more about it, I think the important distinction here is that elements through 100 were discovered by having uranium absorb neutrons, and then we hit a wall that prevented from more discoveries in that manner, and element 101 had to be discovered via bombardment by whole nuclei. In fact, even the first publication on synthesis of element 100 followed after a bombardment of uranium by oxygen, rather after endless absorption of neutrons. I think I'd rather highlight that; what do you think?--R8R (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @R8R: There are a couple of natural breaks. One is where the discovery became physics instead of chemistry (E102), another is after you hit the fermium wall (E101). The important thing IMHO is when it really became a one-atom-at-a-time thing, so I agree with you that this is the one to highlight. Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm still pondering this. We indeed can say this, but should we? After all, the section is supposed to be about the discoverers, rather than discovery methods. It appears to me that what exactly the synthesis methods for all those elements were is quite off-topic for hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have considered this and I think I was right to say we shouldn't say this just because we can because we go rather off-topic otherwise. Although if you disagree, I'll be eager to listen to you.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  It looks pretty good as is. I agree that this section should not detail discovery methods, for those are explained in detail elsewhere and would indeed stray off-topic. Since that note is no longer in this section, we can consider this adequately resolved. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The more nucleons there are in a nucleus, the more energy there is for binding the nucleons. – I'm unsure about this. To an uninformed reader, it would suggest that heavier nuclei are more stable, not less stable (after ⁶²Ni). This could be removed together, a link to an article such as nuclear binding energy should be sufficient.

  I've copyedited a previous sentence to make it clear enough.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's better, though I'd also suggest changing this to "the more total energy" to make it obvious that more nucleons have more total energy, but are not more stable as a result. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  I did some more copyediting; please see the results.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Clearer now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• hypothesized a different mechanism – proposed or suggested would read better in my opinion, as these experiments were soon conducted, and hypothesized connotes greater uncertainty than I understand from the source.
  • Changed to "proposed". Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei – I suggest adding somewhere, perhaps in parentheses, that this refers to symmetric fusion, so that readers have a short and to-the-point connection.

  I have my doubts about that, though I'm eager to see what I could be missing. You see, "symmetric fusion" is also rather vague, and there's nothing to link that to, so I wonder if it's going to create even more confusion instead (it would need an explanation in the likes of what we already have: "more equal atomic numbers").--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  True, we should keep it as simple and straight-to-the-point as possible. I think we can leave this one as is. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• including one around Z = 108. – note [t] is definitely not needed; these symbols are introduced and used earlier in the article. I suggest removing it entirely.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  That the note was misplaced is clear enough, but have the terms really been introduced by the time we first use those letters? if so, where?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  They're not all consistent (Z is introduced in the infobox, the others are thrown around). To make it unambiguous, I suggest adding them to the transcluded short introduction if possible. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  My understanding has been that the infobox doesn't matter (it's more of a data sheet rather than article text). It appears to me that the note is best restored at the first occurrence of these letters in the text (currently "the vicinity of Z = 110–114"). I also think that there is no room for these symbols in our short introduction.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Only thing is they're not all introduced in one place. Atomic number is introduced in the context of uranium (discovery section), mass number could be added in the note dealing with nuclide notation (note [k]), and I don't see neutron number anywhere before the isotopes section. Working with these is doable, it's just not as consistent as we'd like. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I guess we have to play with the cards we've been dealt. Since that appears to be okay with you, I have restored the notation note at the first occurrence of this notation in the text.--20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• No results have been released. – citation needed, and date needed. Otherwise, some more definite statement should be made in the article (if necessary, about the fact that no results have been released, structured similarly to hassocene at the end).

  I have updated this paragraph.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Atomic nuclei show additional stability...indicate closure of "sub-shells". (4 sentences) – since the sections have been rearranged, I suggest moving these sentences up to the isotopes section, and introducing the island of stability and the nature of ²⁹²Hs differently here.

  Good one; please see my edit. Comments are welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  The flow is much better now. The island of stability is appropriately introduced, and the part about ²⁹²Hs in nature is both contextualized and focused. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• This in turn increases the gravitational attraction – a {{dubious}} tag was added, and looking at it, I also am inclined to question because gravitational attraction isn't the dominating force at the atomic scale. This could perhaps be simplified as well, as a more thorough explanation would require more jargon and stray off topic. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's actually a very good tag, and I'll address it below.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Responded there.--R8R (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Should we have alt text for the last two images? The diagrams are pretty straightforward, but the captions should at least be converted to alt if not supplemented by something else explanatory.

  But they do, don't they? What pictures are you referring to exactly?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Never mind, I missed the way it was formatted. My mistake. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced. – how come you re-added this? I removed it because it is outdated and inaccurate; a more recent source says that ~100 flerovium atoms have been synthesized in total, many of which decay to hassium, not including the many hassium atoms directly synthesized and/or used for chemical studies. I think we're better off without it unless a very recent (2019 or 2020) source gives a number; someone else will inevitably comment that this is outdated or note the inconsistency across articles. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this has to do with Hurricanehink's comments below about how much Hs has ever been produced. I personally think it makes some sense to make it clear to the reader what kinds of quantities we're talking about. (If you can count the atoms, you have basically nothing.) However maybe it's better to instead stress that you get only one atom at a time (as the events are surely widely spaced apart in time): it doesn't quite make sense to ask how much Hs has been produced because by the time you produce the second atom, the first is long gone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Indeed, this idea came to me after I saw the comment a comment by Hurricanehink below. It appears to me that it's a good idea to have a crude estimate to get some sense of how research there has been into the element. To me, it doesn't seem like 2011 is that long ago given that I don't find it reasonable to have a precise estimate in the first place, but if it helps, I've seen some similar estimates dated 2019: one, two.

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't remember us discussing this before.--R8R (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The 2019 estimate might be a better place to start if you believe it's a good idea. I feel it's already emphasized that several experiments were performed, and it seems clear to me (but maybe not all readers) the contrast between the amount of research done on hassium vs. all heavier elements (as noted in their respective articles). And you're right, I don't think we discussed it. I removed it in this edit, which I surprisingly remember, and was genuinely convinced I did it much more recently than December 2018. I still feel the same way about it now, though, but I'm open to a less crude estimate to give a general idea if there is a recent source available. ComplexRational (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've put in the two references I mentioned above and modified the sentence somewhat. Does it look good for you?--R8R (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks better. It leaves room to account for what I mentioned, and you're right that if there were over 1,000 atoms, the word choice would reflect that (rather than simply over 100). Also, for future reference, we say "on the order of" rather than "in the order of"; I made that correction. More English language peculiarities... anyway, I think we can consider this resolved. I'll review the rest of the comments hopefully tomorrow or over the weekend. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I think you mentioned it to me some time before but evidently I may not always be the fastest learner.

I'll gladly wait for your upcoming responses.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: All done. RL has been quite a mess and mentally very taxing this week, so I apologize for not finishing sooner. I have one open comment still, and would like to resolve that, but this article has come a long way over the past year and with all the changes enacted, I'm happy to support now. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: thank you very much! There's no problem with waiting whatsoever since I'm not active every day, too. I hope you're doing fine. I took another look at the last issue you raised and I think I found a good solution.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

Support - I came here from an FAC I'm co-nomming, hoping you might be able to review it if you have the time. Alright, elements! Here we go.

• The lightest isotopes, which usually have shorter half-lives, were synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei and as decay products. The heaviest isotope produced by direct fusion is 271Hs; heavier isotopes have only been observed as decay products of elements with larger atomic numbers. - source?

  That phrase is covered by the table in that section, and the table is well-referenced.

• have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei. - ditto

  This one is covered by the references earlier in that sentence. I put them there for the convenience of the reader who may want to check the sources so they could see which part of the sentence is covered by what.

• and the fact that hassium (and its parents) decays very quickly. A few singular chemistry-related properties have been measured, such as enthalpy of adsorption of hassium tetroxide, but properties of hassium metal remain unknown and only predictions are available. - I'm guessing these refs are already elsewhere in the article.

  Yes. The decay part is covered by the table in the Isotopes section, and the chemistry part is covered by the Experimantal chemistry section.

• Are you dealing with the dubious - discuss tag in the Relativistic effects section?

  Yes, I have responded to it below.

All in all, the article is pretty technical, but for an element that none of will ever touch or interact with, I'm glad that you were so thorough in your research, so I could read all about it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope your read wasn't overwhelming; the topic is indeed quite technical but I generally strive to write in a manner that is as accessible to everyone as possible. I'll try to review your article during the next week; if I haven't done so by the end of it, please feel free to point that out to me.--R8R (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you add those sources in then? If the sources are in the table, could you just re-add it to the prose? I always look out for any paragraph that doesn't end in a source. Also, one last thing I thought of. Is there any estimate for how much Hassium has ever been produced? You mention in the lead "minuscule quantities", but I don't see where in the article you specify that amount. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that you mean re-adding the reference for the first point you raise?

Correct. I notice a few sections that don't have any citations at the end: 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion", 2nd and 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes", and the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", which... I noticed "No results have been released." IDK what's appropriate for chemistry articles, but maybe add a "As of {{currentyear}}" in this sentence? Tough to cite a negative though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As for lack of citations at the end of paragraphs: I have generally applied my common sense and the Wikipedia policy (luckily, the two coincide): I put citations wherever the information could actually be challenged by a curious reader. I generally doubt it that somebody is actually going to question the nomenclature (as in the 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion") when the physics behind it is cited. Sometimes, paragraphs end on statements that I expand on in the following paragraphs (2nd paragraph of "Isotopes"). The sentence ending the 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes" is referenced, it's just the references for the convenience of a curious reader willing to check the sources are not at the end of the sentence. As for the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", it is indeed hard to cite a negative but luckily there's something coming our way, so I'll expand on this statement regardless of whether the report has actually been released.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reworked the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence," so that's now out of the way too.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There is one vague estimate which has been reproduced a few times. I don't know the ultimate origin of the estimate (the book I found it in doesn't use in-line citations) but it's rather believable. Added it in the beginning of the Isotopes section.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that bit, but could you improve the wording of the bolded part - "As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced" - grammatically it could be stronger. For instance, "As of 2011, the amount of Hassium atoms ever produced numbered in the hundreds." I hope that still implies the same meaning, and it could still be written stronger. It's a shame the source wasn't more specific, like giving a range, or giving some cap. More than 100 could be 1,000 or a million, which is different when it comes to microscopic quantities. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I went for the time being for "As of 2019, the quantity of all hassium ever produced was in the order of hundreds of atoms." This seems good enough for me. I frankly rather doubt it that anyone would assume that if it there were a few thousands of atoms that anyone would mention merely "more than 100". That is mathematically correct but that's not how real language usually works :) but the combination of sources makes me even more confident in the statement as I gave it.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Readded the particular source citing the sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Your wording for "hundreds" works great.I'm picky, and for all of the hard work you've put into it, you should be proud of what you've written (with other writers, yea, Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, but I know what it's like doing the bulk of the work for a very niche subject, and as a fellow science nerd, I appreciate your work on such an elementary article). Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Most elements are not as niche, but it's good to branch out every once in a while. I should be able to start a review on your article on Sunday.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from profdc9

As atomic number increases, so does the electrostatic attraction between an electron and the nucleus. This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn increases the gravitational attraction between the electron and the nucleus I do not believe the description of the change in the interaction due to the relativistic velocities of the inner shell electrons should be described as gravitational attraction. Gravity (in so far as is known) is a separate force from the electromagnetic interaction binding electrons to the nucleus. Gravity is many orders of magnitude smaller in strength than the electromagnetic force and so gravity plays essentially no significant role in determining the electronic structure of any atom. The effect being considered, the relativistic increase in mass-energy of the electron as it approaches light speed, is an effect known in special relativity and does not the require gravitational considerations of general relativity. That said, whether or not the relativistic trends of the lanthanide group persist or not in the actinide group, is outside of my expertise, with the increased screening of s and p orbitals resulting in higher electron affinities for actinides than lanthanides, as mentioned stabilizing the +8 oxidation further of hassium over osmium, though this summary seems to suggest such effects.

Indeed. Thank you very much for taking your time to write this comment. As I was writing that, I was rather confused myself about why greater mass would play a role anyway. Your comment prompted me to look it up, and I got it now. Please see if it's good enough now.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments from DePiep

• About section title "#Introduction". It is the first section, depth h2 (==). This is confusing since the lead (top) section performs this task already implicitly (see WP:LEAD for example: Introduction is a synonym even). Also, as it stands it suggests or states that it is an introduction to the article topic (i.e., hassium). This confusion can easily be removed by changing this section title into "Introduction to the heaviest elements", "Introduction to heavy elements", or something alike. A similar issue is likely to appear in all articles with this introduction transcluded. (Noted before [1]). -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  A heading such as Introduction to superheavy elements or similar would be fine with me, and avoid this ambiguity. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  That would be fine if we didn't use the same introduction for elements 102 and 103, too. Does Introduction to the heaviest elements work for you?--R8R (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ah yes, there's that. Introduction to the heaviest elements works. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  OK for this appreciation. I note, just a note, that the reuse of the section now implies a sub-optimal outcome (compromises to keep the whole). For a TOC, these section titles are very long (trying to squeeze too much into it?).

About actual proposed section names: I understand you mention E102 and E103, nobelium and lawrencium, because they are not 'superheavy' (a definition not clarified nearby, that is: a reader might easily miss this detail—as I do. Doesn't this say the wording, trying to define it, is unfit for all 16 articles?).

I'd prefer a short, crisp sectiontitle, aimed at the TOC, not detailed; no need to put the excact definition of 'heavy' or 'superheavy' in this sectiontitle. I prefer like Introduction to [super]heavy elements. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my preference: I prefer any of the two proposed here (not using [ ] brackets); actual choice should be short, but in no way incorrect or confusing (up to the specialists). Changing between the transcluding articles may occur AFAIK. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about getting a sub-optimal outcome because I'm certain what we got isn't one. There is at the highest count one small part of the text which could in principle differ at all, and the difference would be very small anyway. And even at that, that's not a distinction I'd want to draw anyway.

  Note that the notion of "superheavy elements" is explained in a note. Regardless, the "heaviest" elements that we're talking about is not a well-defined term like "superheavy elements"; it's merely used for convenience for as many elements as it could reasonably take. In our case, the defining principle that highlighted the need of this introduction in the first place is the synthesis method. The introduction focuses on synthesis and the general principle used for elements 102+.

  To me, it seems like "Introduction" is just fine. I'll also note that we have articles like Introduction to quantum mechanics or Introduction to genetics, which go beyond their respective lead sections. If we are to make a longer title, then we should be accurate about it. "Introduction to heavy elements" would be plain confusing: when I think of heavy elements, I think of mercury or lead, not rutherfordium or hassium. "Introduction to superheavy elements" is better but again, we use the same text in nobelium and lawrencium. "Introduction to the heaviest elements" avoids this problem and is about as long anyway.--R8R (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Why do you think "Introduction" is fine, wrt my objections? The example "Introduction to quantum mechanics" is not applicable here, as the title is a higher level instead; sections titles do not conflict. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  You see, I have never really thought of the lead section as of an introduction. From my (writer's) perspective, you first write an article and then you summarize it in no more than four paragraphs which is as much as most people will read. Hence to me, that's what it is: a summary.

  That being said, I do not want to dismiss your objections entirely, which is why I am trying to consider other possible section titles.--R8R (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW, I like "Introduction to the heaviest elements". After all, it is not just about element 108. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  @R8R:: OK for the writing process, but in this case the result has this flaw: an "==Introduction==" only can refer to the title (to mean: 'Introduction of hassium' then). Which does not cover the content of the section correctly. Secondary , the (possible, partial) overlap with the implicit concept of the lede is adding up to the confusion. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  The "Introduction to hassium" meaning wouldn't at all be wrong. The whole point of this section is that it applies not only to the heaviest elements in general, but also to each element individually. It's only an introduction to the heaviest elements as much as it is an introduction to hassium, an introduction to copernicium, to flerovium, and so on. It's just that it's easier to take this introduction to hassium into context of that it applies also to many other elements, but the idea that this text is an introduction to hassium alone is also completely correct. This, come to think of it, is another thing I like about the shorter section title.

  "Introduction to the heaviest elements" is also fine by me. I still don't see the advantage "Introduction to superheavy elements" compared to it. It narrows the scope by including two elements (or even more, depending on how you count) for which this introduction also applies perfectly well, which goes against the very point of generalization which is why we can't have "Introduction" in the first place. That is because "superheavy elements" is a chemical concept, and the introduction is not about chemistry, so there's no reason to stick to it in its title. And "Introduction to superheavy elements" is not really shorter either, see for yourself:

 Introduction to the heaviest elements
 Introduction to superheavy elements

So since Double sharp also likes this idea, I'll change the title to "Introduction to the heaviest elements" for the time being, although if you have another reason to have a different title, I'll gladly consider it.--R8R (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've made the change, the longer title seems rather clumsy but we can live with that if considering the lead section an introduction is actually a thing.--R8R (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The lede, I suppose, is more of a summary than an introduction. OTOH, whenever you have some stuff before a bunch of level-3 sections, then I can see a sort of quasi-lede being used as an introduction. Anyway, I like what we have now ("Introduction to the heaviest elements") because it tells us what we're going to get in that section. Double sharp (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Afternote: I find the notion that the original "Introduction" it can rightly be read as "Introduction to hassium" incorrect. That is not the content of the section. Also, the original source article title also so. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I conclude consensus for the change. This also implies the same change for the other transcluding element articles. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• About section #Discoverers of transuranium elements prior to element 108.

1. The introduction The chemical element with the highest atomic number ... by observation in nature (4 sentences) is only about the general Z=A+N description. I don't think this is needed. By now and by here in the article, concepts of "heavy" and "atomic number" should be clear. First suggestion: remove those [four senteces], and adjust next sentence.

Sorry to say this, that's not what those sentences are about. They are about what the heaviest element in the nature is (from what point discoveries by synthesis begin). There is no mention of N or A whatsoever. Another point is to introduce the "element XX" terminology which the general reader may be unfamiliar with. Removing those sentences would make the text less readable as per what I just mentioned.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2. Why this section at all? An old introduction to the transfermium wars that was kept? It has nothing to do with hassium, and does not even make an introduction to it (or its discoverers). Also, to me it occurred as an extension/protraction of sorts to the previous section. What would the article lack when we remove this section? -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There are two main stories to uncover in history of discovery of an element such as hassium: one is that there is a great amount of technological/scientific developments that are needed for the discovery, and the discovery is a scientific achievement regardless of who achieves it. The other story is that there are different scientific teams seeking to write themselves down in history as discoverers. This subsection is an introduction to the latter story (and the next one introduces the reader to the former). This section ends on the very important idea that there is this conflict and that other teams are a part of this. Even though the lab in Berkeley did not claim discovery of element 108, it is still important because its other claims clashed with the German claim to the displeasure of both the Americans and the Germans.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• About section #Cold fusion, and #Reports, subsections of #Discovery.

1. Another pre-discovery section, and an overall generic introduction. It does not specifically lead to 108. My first idea is to merge relevant parts into the actual discovery-of-hassium section.

I beg to differ, it is very relevant and not generic. The cold fusion technology was only useful for discoveries of a limited number of elements (107 through 113). And it's important because even though you can figure out that 88 + 20 = 108 or 82 + 26 = 108 (those reactions are mentioned in the reports section), if you want to really understand the subject you need to know why those were the combinations used and not, say, 96 + 12 = 108.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2. The section Hassium#Reports does describe the actual discovery. For this, its title is a bit understating. Maybe the cold fusion + and reports (process of discovedry and claim) could make a strong centerpiece of #Discovery. -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I really do give a positive answer to at least something but I find myself unable to do so. I think "Reports" is a solid title. That you report a discovery and that you think you have made a discovery doesn't mean you have, and any discovery needs a confirmation. Arbitration is a fairly short section because it would otherwise be too technical. Naming is an important section, not scientifically but symbolically: as in any human endeavor, there are people whose feelings are an important part of the picture: in this case, the feelings in question are the desire to discover something new and be the first to do so and the desire to get recognized for it.

If you think there's anything important missing, I'm all ears. A comment like "maybe it could make a strong centerpiece" is hard to react to especially when I think it already is already satisfied.

There are important things about a discovery other than the experiment itself. I think I covered them all. If you think otherwise, again, I'll be glad to consider that.

Also, since you knew this article would be at a FAC, I would've appreciated it if you had made your big content comments before the process started. I hope we can make this a common practice in the future.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to respond tonight.--R8R (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, alas I can't do it today, but I have an answer in mind and I'll try to write it down tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Naypta

I've not conducted a broad review of sources for the statements here, I'm mostly focusing on the prose and text.

• Hassium has been made only in laboratories in minuscule quantities; its possible occurrence in nature has been hypothesized but no natural hassium has been found so far - this sentence feels a bit messy to me. Perhaps one way of improving it might be "Hassium has only been produced in a laboratory, in very small quantities. Natural occurrences of the element have been hypothesised, but none has ever been found"?

  I'm not sure about this one. I liked the rest of your copyediting suggestions, but I'm not sure about this one in particular. @Double sharp: would you provide a third opinion?--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, in 1978 - does this really need the full location spelled out like this? Just "in 1978 in Dubna, a town in the Soviet Union" I would think would suffice. Likewise, Darmstadt, Hesse, West Germany could just as well skip out Hesse.

  I have picked up the habit of writing longer location names from the Americans. You see, when they name a town, they normally add the name of the state it's in. It makes perfect sense to me: the United States is a big country, and getting a tiny bit of context is helpful to not feel completely adrift before an unfamiliar city name: you probably don't know what kind of a city "Jefferson City" is, but you know where Missouri is, so "Jefferson City, Missouri" won't sound quite as alien. Now, my understanding has been that English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia that is written in English rather than a Wikipedia oriented in all matters on native English speakers, and there is no preference with respect to toponyms. My understanding is that, say, "Wixhausen, Germany" is as understandable to an average German as "Jefferson City, United States" to an average American, that's why I opt to use the province/region/state name, too, if the country is big enough. With respect to Soviet places in particular, I also mention the name of the corresponding Soviet republic because those republics eventually became independent countries that exist to this day and that generally kept the Soviet subdivisions.

In the case of this particular article, these clarifications are also useful because they serve as a subtle hint to the names mentioned in note n.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hrm. MOS:GEO calls for the same name as the article title, but I think at least the state name should be incorporated here too, to clarify the political undertones involved. I'm still not convinced that this level of disambiguation is necessary, though; "Moscow Oblast" to a lot of people doesn't mean very much, either. It's like me saying Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, United Kingdom - I mean, yeah, that's a place in the UK, but most people outside the UK wouldn't be able to say where in the UK it is, with or without the intervening "Carmarthenshire"! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• have only been partly characterized but they compare well should probably be have only been partly characterized, but they compare well.

  You're right; after reading your comment, I checked the rules on punctuation, and from what I've read, you're completely right.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Section heading Introduction to the heaviest elements should probably just be "Introduction" for consistency with other similar articles.

  I don't really know. I am with you on this one, but there have also been other opinions (see discussion on this page). Perhaps this will be discussed one more time at WT:ELEM when this FAC is over.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, so I see. Perhaps a broader discussion at WT:ELEM is appropriate, although I still think ideally that discussion should be had separately to here, and here we should use the status quo until a change is made over there more broadly. DePiep and ComplexRational, any thoughts? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• I broadly agree with DePiep that the section Discoverers of transuranium elements prior to element 108 doesn't really seem to be relevant here. Per FACRIT 4, an FA should "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and [use] summary style" - I reckon this probably ought to be a link to another article, with perhaps a much smaller introduction linking it in in terms of its relevance to this article.

  Again, you see, the title of that subsection doesn't sum up what the reader is meant to take away from this section (if they don't manage to learn all of it, that is). If I were to summarize the subsection in two sentences, it would be like this: "Elements have been discovered by synthesis since 1940. There was a race between different institutes to discover new elements." Neither is really about the institutions themselves as the title suggests, so maybe another title could be better (I haven't come up with such a title so far), but speaking about content rather than titles, the content is actually important as an introduction into the story of discovery of hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I read the content as well as just the heading, but I don't think that content necessarily belongs in this article. It's explicitly not talking about the actual subject of the article, but rather laying background for it; to comply with summary style, that background probably belongs somewhere else, with a brief mention given to it in either the lead or another section as appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Couple of bits on no then-known fissioning nucleus showed similar parameters of fission:
  • no then-known sounds a bit strange to my ear - "no fissioning nucleus known at the time" would perhaps be a less awkward way of phrasing that.

    Good one; rephrased as advised.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Is fissioning nucleus a common term for a nucleus undergoing fission? It sounds a bit strange to my ear - I've heard fissile before for one that's capable of "fissioning", but never "fissioning" to describe the actual action. Then again, I'm not a physicist!

    Looks like it; this is indeed a term that is limited to nuclear physics.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• According to Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium should be known as - to a non-scientific reader (although I suppose they're unlikely to have read this far anyway!) the "should be known" here might be confusing, because obviously Mendeleev's nomenclature applies only prior to discovery. It might be worth giving it a rephrase to something along the lines of "Under Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium would be known as".

  Thank you; your suggestion is actually better. The original phrase has been with us since what feels like forever, and nobody really questioned it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Although these recommendations were widely followed in the chemical community, most scientists in the field ignored them - two problems:
  • scientists in the field is ambiguous - which field? Clearly chemists are also "scientists in the field", if "field" is not disambiguated.

    I rephrased this a little bit to match the source a bit more closely.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Somewhat more importantly, the attached inline citation does not appear to support this (quite controversial) statement.

    Luckily enough, the statement is supported. See specifically the part between "LÖ: Did the system work then, or were these names and symbols simply ignored?" and "and the name you proposed for your element."

    I assume you're referring to However, neither side was interested in the systematic naming scheme in their scientific articles - trouble is, this isn't just testimony of what another person said, it's a journal, quoting someone, quoting something someone else said, about something which yet another person did. That's... a long chain for that information to follow, and I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source for that claim as a result. It could probably use at least an additional reference somewhere else to confirm it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• well-established nuclear shells, and the existence of these nuclear shells is somewhat repetitive; the second "nuclear shells" could probably be just "shells".

  Indeed.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• that 108 is a proton magic number for deformed nuclei—nuclei that are far from spherical—and 162 is a neutron magic number for deformed nuclei - there's repetition here, too; a rephrase to something like "that 108 is a proton magic number, and 162 is a neutron magic number, for deformed nuclei (nuclei that are far from spherical)" might be of use.

  I don't want to parenthesize the definition of deformed nuclei as I want to stress that this term is important in this text. Perhaps we could replace the second "deformed nuclei" with "such nuclei"; I hope that does the trick, but if not, please say so and I'll think more about it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think a parenthetical would do the job nicely there, sure. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• further research is required, including more accurate measurements of - perhaps it might be worth clarifying here why the research is required; something like "there are currently insufficient[ly accurate] measurements of ... to be able to ascertain information about the interaction with silicon nitride" might work.

  Thank you very much for this comment. One of the things I like about Wikipedia editing the most is that it helps you train the art of writing. By writing texts, you learn to communicate with people more clearly so that they easily understand what you are writing to them and they don't have any questions you don't want them to have. I'll fix this one shortly.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have clarified this.--R8R (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully that makes some semblance of sense! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for dropping by, I will try to respond today.--R8R (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I have responded to most of your comments. Your comments have been great: I particularly like getting comments from people who are not very familiar with the subject at hand very well because such people tend to look at a text differently, and they can spot some things I can't. I hope your read wasn't too overwhelming, at least the first couple of sections. Thank you very much for your comments!--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Cheers! Some thoughts above where appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)