Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hassium/archive1

Hassium

 * Nominator(s): Double sharp, R8R 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We return with another superheavy element exposé after nihonium (me) and dubnium (R8R) to provide some retrospectives while the current march to the end of the periodic table has stalled! ^_^ After a copyedit by Baffle gab1978, I believe we're ready now! Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Some paragraphs end with unsourced statements. I'd fix these first. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed all. Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Bohrium_hassium_meitnerium_ceremony.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the FUR; is my added text OK? Double sharp (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Better, but could still be improved. The last sentence of "purpose" really belongs under "replaceable", with additional commentary about you not having found a free version and what you've done to try. Also, "portion used" would benefit from a brief explanation of why it's necessary to use the whole thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the explanation. A free version seems possible only if the GSI donates the image; I admit I have not tried to contact them to ask if it would be possible (would be useful for the picture at Darmstadtium too, come to think of it). Should we try? Or is the picture not quite needed because it refers to simply a single-sentence statement that there was a naming ceremony held before IUPAC made its first decision on the names? (Pinging co-nom R8R as well.) Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My supposition is that while it would most certainly be nice, that's not strictly required. It seems like there is no existing picture that fulfills the purpose right now (this picture has been around for many years now for a good reason), and if I recall correctly, this has to do with strict copyright law in Germany, which does not automatically give away media freely created by state organizations and public officials like in the U.S. I certainly believe that the picture is highly relevant here, which justifies the fair use claim. This is an event which must not have had many attendances (for instance, a similar ceremony for celebrating final recognition of element 118 does not even have photos from the hosting organization; in fact, their own website has pictures labeled "Photos are courtesy of the Press Service of the RF Ministry of Education and Science," which says a lot about how many photos were taken there), so it is highly unlikely someone has taken a photo. There was no reason whatsoever to make the event accessible for outsiders. Over the Internet, I've found a few similar photos, but all come from GSI.
 * To sum up, there is no photo from alternative source of origin that I could find over the Internet, and any such source is highly unlikely to exist in the first place. I hope this satisfies the requirements.--R8R (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Might be a dumb question but why haven't we made the isotopes with a long life yet (given the article discusses predicted isontopes) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't know what they are. The article discusses predictions indeed, but they're a bit speculative, and those long-lived isomers may not actually exist. As for the missing isotopes – the ones in the middle of the list will probably require finding new alpha-decay branches in predominantly spontaneously fissioning isotopes. The ones beyond the end will need a sure observation of an even-Z nucleus with a higher neutron excess than the current record-holders of 293Lv and its daughters. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we source or explain this somehow? It is interesting that there are predicted isotopes with such a lengthy halflife Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this comment. I always appreciate it when people write a down-to-earth comment because it's these things that people are likely to take away from an article that are often overlooked.
 * I'd formulate it like this: As the atomic number increases, the amount of neutrons per proton in the most stable nuclei grows, and this trend is likely to continue into the superheavy elements. Currently, all superheavy elements are created by bombarding one lighter element with another, and both have lower neutron--proton ratios than the planned most stable isotope, hence the difficulty of synthesizing the most stable isotopes. Hassium can be synthesized either directly or from decay of heavier elements. Those heavier elements have a little higher ratios of both starting nuclei, which means a little higher total neutron excess, which will be carried over after the consecutive alpha decays that will bring us to hassium. This means that we are likely to get heavier isotopes from alpha decay, given that those original nuclei and their decay path will continue to hassium and an intermediate nucleus will not fission instead. For aforementioned reasons, these heavier isotopes that are within our reach are still lighter than the most stable ones. The beta-stability line (in our case, the beta-stable isotopes) has not been approached, either.
 * This is close to what I'd want to have. I'll add that soon enough, or maybe Double sharp will beat me to it.--R8R (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is indeed the general trend predicting the region where one might likely find the most stable isotopes, but it is practically impossible to give a set of likely candidates for longest-lived. It is very important to note the inconsistent predictions given in different models, as well as predictions of a region of quickly fissioning nuclei near the beta-stability line. For example, ref Zagrebaev 2013 (#37) shows the dominance of fission in the Z = 108 region below the island of stability, and this (not cited) shows some β-stable nuclides with predicted millisecond half-lives and the longest half-life of a few days for 283Hs. Additionally, some of the heavier isotopes such as 292Hs are predicted to have 184 neutrons (a magic number) in some publications, though the role of β decay is also not agreed upon. This is superficially illustrated in part in a paragraph I initially contributed months ago pertaining to natural occurrence.
 * I'll try to write more tomorrow or Wednesday and recheck some sources by then. I'd also say that a detailed description is not necessary as long as we highlight the absence of consensus for which isotopes are longest-lived and estimates of the longest half-life. It's important, though, to keep these questions in mind (questions like these motivate me to do more research). ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
(Incomplete)

I've started this review, but there are major issues which need attending to before I can proceed much further. I don't think there's a problem with the sources themselves, which appear to be appropriately scholarly and in accordance with the FA quality criteria. My concerns have to do, mainly, with verification and formatting.
 * Unreferenced notes: the notes (a) to (d) need generally better referencing. For example, note (a) is attached to the statement "...claimed to have discovered element 108—specifically the 267Hs isotope, which supposedly had a half-life of 400 to 500 million years—in natural molybdenite and suggested the provisional name sergenium (symbol Sg);" Note (a) only refers to the use of the symbol Sg, not to the substance of the ststement.
 * This one should be referenced by the next cite [25], as I have clarified (R8R should be able to confirm it, as I don't speak Russian). Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note (b) tells us that, in the table, "the most recently published values are listed", but doesn't tell us by whom, or when, they were published.
 * What do you exactly want cited for note a? It is a suggestion from 1970, as the date of ref 25 will tell, and the name "seaborgium" only appeared at all in the 1990s. I doubt there's any source that mentions both at all, but comparing dates is fairly trivial. I don't quite understand the precise problem with notes b through d. In each case (notes c and d) and for all cases collectively (note b), the statements are supplemented by the references in the table. There's a Ref column in there and I'm failing to see how it is not enough. Am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In the list of references:
 * Ref 2: There are 26 citations to this book source, but no page references provided. In the absence of an online link, page refs are essential for verification.
 * Ref 3: The link goes to an abstract, and no page refs are given for the citations to the article
 * Ref 4: The page range needs proper formatting, per MoS, thus "pp. 215–217"
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 5: range given is 56 pages. Too wide for verification purposes
 * Condensed the range.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 6: This is returning a 404 error – "File or Directory not found". Please check the link
 * Thank you, the link has been rescued.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 13: Page ref. required.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 21: Lacks publisher details; looks like someone's private blog
 * Added.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 24: A more precise page ref would be helpful
 * Well, this whole article, its main thesis is the source of the claim, not just a part of article, so the present range seems appropriate, doesn't it?--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 29: The page range given, "1250013–1–1250013–20", is pretty well indecipherable for verification purposes.
 * Ref 30: Page range R165–R242 (77 pages) too wide for verification
 * Done.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 31: As for 29 above, indecipherable range
 * Ref 32: As for 31
 * These (29, 31, and 32) are because the page numbers in the sources already have hyphens/dashes in them: the first one has pages numbered from 1250013–1 through 1250013–20. Is there a better way to write down a specific page range in this confusing-looking situation? Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And it seems like this cannot be helped, either: I tried changing the first and last dashes to hyphens, but this had no effect on how the range is displayed.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I find that it displays okay when an em dash (—) separates the pages. Ref 32 already was formatted this way; I tweaked refs 29 and 31. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 33: p. range too wide.

That's just the first column of references looked at. As you can see, the main issue is with page references, which are often too wide, unclear or, in some cases, non-existent. These are all verification concerns. I'll leave it with you for the present, and I'll look again when you've had a chance to deal with these, and perhaps to apply the same principles to the second column. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. We'll improve on it.--R8R (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While there are a few refs left that I have not been able to resolve quickly, I'd like to mention that most of them have been fixed and that I have gone through the remained of the ref list and tried to improve on it as well. I hope we will be able to complete the list in a few days.--R8R (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from The Huhsz

 * The article seems to have once been in UK English ("tunnelling"). Which spelling is it supposed to have now? I see "homologue" but also "thermalized" and "honoring". Needs to be clarified.
 * There was a discussion about this at Talk:Hassium. I admit that "tunnelling" seems not to have been noticed, so it looks like this article should be in en-OED after all; I'll change it. Double sharp (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * UK-English was/is ruled out (even by then), but it might be en-OED. See talk link. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ with this refinement: article is consistently en-OED not en-UK. See ENGVAR applied . -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, most scientists in the field ignored the recommendations..." is not just a very poor sentence, but seems to be present in a lot of Wikipedia articles on transuranic elements. There's nothing wrong with using a similar form of words in multiple articles, but it should be a better form of words than this. What or who were widely used, the scientists or the recommendations?
 * I have tried to rephrase this. Currently it reads: 'Although these recommendations were widely followed in the chemical community, most scientists in the field ignored them.[15] They either called it "element 108", with the symbols E108, (108) or 108, or used the proposed name "hassium"'; if that's all right, I'll change it in the other superheavy element articles. Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The prose in general looks clunky; it's a difficult area already for most readers and it needs to be better written than this. Sorry, but it isn't there yet. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you give us some specific examples? Baffle gab1978 has done a copyedit for us already, but I'm eager to implement improvements that you suggest. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Support
Having read some of these chemical element related FACs previously, this one has benefited from a copy edit by User:Baffle gab1978. Only a few small items stood out for me; I read it a second time and made the associated nine edits. Reads smoothly to me. Sandbh (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - We're creeping up on the one-month mark with open opposition and substantial commentary indicating that the article was not completely prepared before nomination. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)