From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Astatine 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2015.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 2, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
December 2, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
April 30, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
Version 0.5  
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Astatine at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

A, GA Class review[edit]


The time has come, and this is the first A-class review for our WikiProject. I believe the article suits A1-A4 well, and I don't know what could be done to suit A5. I wish to push it to FAC later, and first undergo this. This article, in some places, is done like the FAC of francium. Any suggestions and opinions are surely welcome.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems good. I don't know what could be done to get a picture; I tried and found nothing. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Closed as it's long-lasting with no consensus on it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Astatine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, and it is the first article I will be reviewing as an official member of WP:ELEM.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    No images, so not applicable to this GA review
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images of astatine, unfortunately, are virtually nonexistant, and I doubt we will ever get an image for this element. I will let this slide, but if an image ever becomes available, it needs to be inserted into this article ASAP.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  • 1st para, second sentence: Source for number?
    My OR based on simple laws. I don't insist on the inclusion, removed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para, first sentence: When you say "it," what are you referring to?
    I thought that that sentence was quite clear; removed, however, in order not to confuse anyone.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para, first sentence: Restates info in 2nd para, last sentence.
    It doesn't actually. The last sentence of the second para says nothing about that it's a solid.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than these three points, seems good


  • 3rd para, last sentence: Three out of four what?
    Fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than this one point, seems good

Natural Occurrence[edit]

  • 1st para, second sentence: "This rarity is explained with that..." is a very awkward phrase.
    Fixed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para, last sentence: "...Has a daughter of..." is strange wording.
    Fixed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than these, seems good

Many printed and online sources say that the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust is "probably less than one ounce" or "about one ounce" or the equivalent in metric units ("about 25 grams"). However, no derivation is shown by these sources. Perhaps the originator of this estimate applied the crustal abundance calculation to the whole mass of the Earth, including the core and mantle, which would yield a total of 24 grams in the entire Earth. However, that would still be a questionable figure because the abundance of ancestor isotopes in the whole mass of the Earth is probably quite different from that of the crust.

The book Holleman-Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry correctly gives a figure of "3·10-24 % by weight" (3 x 10-26) as the crustal abundance and "no more than 45 milligrams" (0.045 gram) as the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust. A detailed calculation is available at

Gwc100 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chemical reactivity and compounds[edit]

  • 2nd para, second sentence: Sentence seems overly long, could be split into multiple sentences.
    OK, done.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para, second-to-last sentence: Seems overly short, and has non-encyclopedic wording.
    I'm afraid, astatine is not iodine, there's not that much info. Some things known for stable elements compounds are principally unknown for astatine. And I guess if there's more info on the compounds' properties, it'll be very technical and uninteresting (bond lengths, molecular structures, so on. To be honest, I have searched and haven't seen such info yet). This is not a phenomenon: the FA of francium has no Compounds section at all (not because it an alkali metal; its upper neighbor caesium has one). Non-encyclopedic writing is a problem I will not deny, but to be honest, I don't see it. What's exactly wrong? What could I do?
    I have reworded the part "has seen the light". This was what I was talking about. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this, I should have specified the exact words. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than these two points, all is good

Production and uses[edit]

This whole section seems good for a GA. It probably would not be OK for a FA, but for a GA it is fine.


Nothing wrong here, probably could get past even an FA review.


All statements backed up at some point in main body.

As soon as the chemical reactivity and compounds section is fixed, this should pass the GA review! Yankeesrule3 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am now ready to pass this GA review for Astatine. Great job on the article! Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Old. -DePiep (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Density of orthorhombic astatine (speculation)[edit]

When solid, Cl, Br and I have orthorhombic crystalline structures. The volumes of the respective unit cells are 230.91, 262.1046 and 341.5684 cubic Å. The crystalline atomic radii are 0.99, 1.135 and 1.345 Å. If astatine instead has an (unmetallic) orthorhombic structure, its unit cell volume can be indicatively extrapolated using the cube of its predicted covalent atomic radius of 1.5 Å. Its crystalline atomic radius may be marginally larger due to intralayer bonding, as appears to occur in iodine, but I’ll ignore this possibility as I have no way of quantifying it. A straight line extrapolation (R-squared = 0.9989) of unit cell volume for Cl, Br, and I vs. the cube of atomic radius for Cl, Br, I and At indicates an atomic volume for At of 412.3276. There are eight atoms in an orthorhombic unit cell so that gives a density (from the above calcs for metallic astatine) of 278.96 x 10^(–23) grams/412.3276 cubic Å = 6.76 grams per cubic centimetre, noting it is likely to be less than this given stronger intralayer bonding. For comparison, the figure cited in the article is 6.35 ±0.15. Sandbh (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Carbon tetraastatide[edit]

The article says "Carbon tetraastatide has been synthesized", but this seems dubious and I can't verify it. According the Chemical Abstracts, there is only one scientific paper mentioning carbon tetraastatide (Journal of Computational Chemistry (1998), 19(13), 1526-1533) but it is just a computational paper. I don't have access to the book by Emsley used as a reference for this statement, so I can't see exactly what is said there. Can someone find what is said there so we can evaluate it? ChemNerd (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not the greatest fan of Emsley's book anyway: it contains a lot of statements that are not substantiated anywhere else, and I would like very much to get rid of all use of it as a source (and I regret that I have used it a few times before finding this out). For what it's worth, the sentence there is "Research carried out at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, at Upton, New York on Long Island, has produced some compounds, fleetingly synthesised, confirming that astatine is like iodine in forming hydrogen astatide (HAt), ionic compounds like sodium astatide (NaAt), and covalent compounds like carbon tetraastatide (CAt4)." Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

About the phase of Astatine at STP[edit]

As the phase at STP is only theorized, I think we should put (predicted) next to the indication of it being solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheÆtherPlayer (talkcontribs) 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)