Talk:Unbinilium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Invalid Source[edit]

Does it bother anyone else that the sourcing for the part of the article on the compound nucleus is completely invalid? The source that [2] links to shows up with an error message saying 'This page does not exist'. Jacob S-589 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly existed when I added the source...here's an archived link to the same text. Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

More predictions[edit]

Sources[edit]

Many of the ones I mentioned on Talk:Ununennium are also relevant here, as E119 and E120 are the last two elements we can feasibly produce with current technology.

Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

These things really do get dated quickly, especially when the element is not known yet...maybe indeed I should wait, and finish the last known transactinides again with their juicy history, rather then immerse myself in a mess that is not even sorted out yet like it was for 113–118! Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Clear, yes; concise... maybe. Not going to require obvious improvements since it is such an arcane and technical topic, but it could certainly benefit from attention to sentence length and complexities.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead needs to do a better job of summarizing whole article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The formatting of some of the references, of which there certainly appear to be an appropriate amount and distribution, could stand some work.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. No issues noted.
2c. it contains no original research. This is a well sourced article on original research. :-)
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Nothing found with Earwig's detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. No issues noted.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No issues noted.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No issues noted.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Fine.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Would be nice to add more, but since no one's actually made it yet, there's really nothing less "science-y" to depict.
7. Overall assessment. Passing per improvements.

First Read Through[edit]

  • I would expect there to be something about the island of stability in the lead. The lead as a whole seems short, but I haven't gone through and digested the whole article yet.
    • Hmm, this is slightly problematic. You see, under the latest predictions (Zagrebaev 2013) on where the island is, E120 is not actually in it. It should be instead around the beta-stability line at Z = 112 ± 3 (centred at around 291Cn and 293Cn). So E120 ends up being at the "outer edge", beyond which there is no way to continue without new technology. Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Better? Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, mentioning the island and explaining that the element is probably not within it is fine. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in "History" seems to have nothing to do with Unbinilium specifically. I suspect the paragraph ordering should be rearranged to actually talk about the element in question in the first non-lead paragraph.
    • The reason this is in front is because it is impossible to use the term "cold fusion" in its sober sense without it being mistaken for the crank sense. Added the phrase "Superheavy elements, such as unbinilium...", to make it clear that E120 is an SHE and so the foregoing concerns apply. Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ununennium and unbinilium (elements 119 and 120) are the lightest elements that have not yet been synthesized, and attempts to synthesize them would push the limits of current technology, due to the decreasing cross sections of the production reactions and their probably short half-lives,[10] expected to be on the order of microseconds." 1) Break it into multiple sentences, please. 2) Lightest elements that have not yet been synthesized made me question whether something heavier had actually been synthesized... but that doesn't appear to have been the case. Is there a better way to phrase that to not give that impression?
  • Is pb in "No atoms were detected providing a limit of 1.6 pb" picobarn? Might want to link that one too, even though fb is linked earlier, the relationship of the two measurement elements is not immediately obvious to people who don't usually work with that range of SI prefixes. :-)
  • "The metal–metal bond lengths in these M2 molecules increase down the group from Ca2 to Ubn2, while the metal–metal bond-dissociation energies generally increase from Ca2 to Ba2 and then drop precipitously to Ubn2, which should be the most weakly bound of all the group 2 homodiatomic molecules: this is because of the increasing participation of the p3/2 and d electrons as well as the relativistically contracted s orbital.[40]" That could stand to be broken into two sentences. It's already technically complex, but the colon provides an adequate spot to break as well.

Overall, the text seems in decent shape, but quite dense. I'm sure this is not an article 8th graders are going to want to peruse, but it could probably stand to be a little less dense overall. Not a fail criteria, just a recommendation. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Looking good with the improvements so far. Can someone go through and clean up the references? I think that's the outstanding thing, although I will want to systematically go through the lead again before signing off on it. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have worked on the references. Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • And that looks fine to me. Good job, again. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Combined with RM on "ununennium" here. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Unbinilium120 (element) – Element had not yet been named, placeholder as atomic number. 108.71.120.62 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The IUPAC recommended name unbinilium is appropriate and consistent with titles of other elements that currently only have placeholder names. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Most stable isotope[edit]

Currently, the infobox says mass number=320 for the most stable isotope. However, that one is not listed in the infobox, nor mentioned in the text. 302Ubn is in text, but not in infobox. Unbiunium has similar issue. Can someone check these? -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Fricke (the source) predicts 320 without a half-life, same for elements 119 and 121. The information for nuclear properties is annoyingly scarce, and I decided to take whatever scraps I could find even if they did not always come accompanied by details. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
OK for me. Shouldn't they be added to the infobox (isotopes list), and be present in body text? BTW, the numbers mentioned are: E119: mn=315, E120: mn=320, E121: mn=320 (so different from what you wrote). E121 has source Amador, not Fricke. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't remember the details well enough, but the main point is correct. The trouble with adding them to the infobox is that without half-lives it would not say anything new – and likewise there is not really much to say in the body about it either. I guess I could add a sentence cited to the respective sources again that so-and-so predicts that 315 or 320 is the most stable isotope. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)