Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Actinides/archive1

Actinides

 * Contributor(s): WP Elements

Not enough chemistry topics! (Partial self nom, as I worked on some, but not all, of these articles.) --Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delegate comment - looks good so far. A book needs to be made for it. GamerPro64  17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Book:Actinides? (That one has three more articles, mostly about environmental effects and nuclear fuel. Here I thought the easiest possible scope definition was "elements which are actinides", because the environmental effects of radioactivity and presence in nuclear fuel are not confined to just the actinides, but also to polonium through radium and fission products.) Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that works. GamerPro64  14:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I just came here to nominate transuranium element, though actinides is a better grouping for this. interesting timing, great minds think alike. I have noticed all the work to bring many to GA, and then saw at least one was FA. I don't know any reason not to create this as a featured topic, which is also a new feature here to me as of right now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The transuraniums are a little further off, they'll need another five GAs to be a GT (main, Db, Sg, Bh, Lv). But we're working on it! :-) With period 7 and Ra additionally we'll have a period 7 GT as well. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Conditional support if the problems raised by the Book Report are fixed. Otherwise, impressive effort. igordebraga ≠ 02:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed actinide, protactinium, and neptunium: uranium and plutonium will take a little longer to fix, but I'll do it after a little quick research. Double sharp (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, all of them are fixed. (I unfortunately had to remove the statement re mutations in human Pu experiments on Pu – I didn't find this in the main article. It may very well be true but I'd rather be sure about it for an FA.) Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Question I don't quite understand why those three topics are in the book but not this GTC. Are they not within the umbrella of Actinides? Alternatively, what are the chances that they can be merged, since they're pretty sparse right now and can always grow summary style? Now would seem to be the appropriate time to address them, though. Otherwise everything else appears to be in order czar ♔   23:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the merging should work: environmental radioactivity ought IMHO to cover Ra, Rn, and Po as well as the actinides, and major/minor actinides are just definitions honestly. I'll do it soon. Double sharp (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, per Nergaal's comment below, perhaps this isn't necessary. Yes, they are about actinides, but they aren't actinides, so if the scope definition is just "elements which are actinides" none of these three articles would qualify. Double sharp (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support there are a few ways to have a topic like this. The current way is more of a "list of actinides" but in the future the topic could be expanded to fit the "overview of actinides" role. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64  21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)