Talk:Shape of the atomic nucleus

Introduction section is not appropriate.
The lead here is off: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I replace the lead with a short summary. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. The lead has been modified to introduce and summarize the most important contents of the article.  Thank you for this suggestion. Urayness (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Urayness Thanks. However a couple of problems remain. The key bits about the intro are 1) to start with a defining sentence and 2) to summarize. The first sentence here says what the shape is "not" and that topic (the lump of spheres thing) is not discussed in the article.
 * I think a small section on "Simplistic models" or "Schematic models" which discussed the issues with the lump of spheres would be great. Then a sentence in the intro (not the first one) would be great. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * John - Thanks for your suggestions. I'll have a look over the next few days, and modify accordingly. Urayness (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Alpha particle as building block
The section "Alpha particle as building block" seems to directly contradict the prolate spheroid section? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The intent in this section is to summarize the rather large body of research related to the potential role of alpha nuclides in determining the geometric shape of nuclides rather than drawing any subjective conclusions. I've added the word "possible" to the title of the section as I believe there is not general consensus and this is an area of ongoing research. Urayness (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate image in intro
The first image in the article is shown as thumbnails in many wikipedia summary pages, eg search results. Therefore the "lump of spheres" in the current article is inappropriate. For now the prolate spheroid would be better. @Urayness Johnjbarton (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, that makes sense. I will make the adjustment. Urayness (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Article organization
I'm trying to figure out the structure of the article.

We start with spherical approximation and then "Origins"? I'm unsure what this section means. Then "Nucleon shape" a rather long section given that it is not ultimately related to the article topic AFAICT. Then "Space between nucleons", which seems to be information on "distance between nucleons". We return to the article topic with "Soft core of light nuclides" but it's about size and density rather than shape. The alpha particle and heavy nuclides are back on track.

Perhaps if the sections were in an order that related them, their nature and reason to be would be clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What is striking to me about the topic is that neither nucleons nor nuclides have a spherical shape even though this is how both are commonly introduced. The idea behind presenting spherical approximation first is to underscore its limitations, especially below mass number 40. Ultimately, nuclide shape is limited by the resolution of the nucleon, and the spatial extent of nuclides (an important parameter of shape) depends on the size and shape nucleons as well as the distance between them
 * I'll have a closer look over the next couple of days and add some clarifying sentences as to how these sections impinge upon nuclear shape. Thanks again for your input!s. n. Urayness (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Shape coexistence
The paper reviews theoretical and experimental data showing that nuclei have multiple coexisting shapes analogous to but different from molecular isomers. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Heyde, Kris, and John L. Wood. "Shape coexistence in atomic nuclei." Reviews of Modern Physics 83.4 (2011): 1467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1467

Unexplained revert.
This edit by @Ehrenkater of change by a registered user has no edit summary. So we have no idea why. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of a sentence at the start of the text had been, probably accidentally, deleted by the previous editor, so that the text then started "and nuclei as outlined ...". This should have been clear from glancing at the text.---Ehrenkater (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is why we have edit summaries. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)