Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hassium/archive2

Hassium

 * Nominator(s): R8R, Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * All images are free.
 * Sandwiching between infobox and first images. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Transcluding a significant prose section into a FAC seems questionable to me, and it prevents you from fixing the sandwiching problem. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements. The main reason is that this info is relevant to basically all the heaviest elements on the table (102 and up), but it's also basically necessary to explain how these elements are really made in practice. Unfortunately, it seems that if we change the images to float right, they float under the infobox inside the next section, which isn't really better.
 * What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that floating right isn't better. in fact, doing it so would necessitate completely rearranging all the images in the article. Maybe we could move it lower (two paragraphs or so down) in the section so that it starts after the infobox ends?
 * +1 to Double sharp. In an earlier review, I did suggest including this introduction to provide context for more sophisticated terms, and the transfusion came about as the simplest solution to for including the same pertinent background in 17 element articles (as it is equally relevant and helpful in all of them). ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My take on that unfortunately, we're stuck with this sandwiching because any other alternative is either not feasible or worse encyclopedically (if that's a word). We do need the transcluded section because we need an introduction into what people find a complicated topic; our introduction is, I believe, a great way to start reading. We also need this introduction in 16 more articles and possibly even more in the future, hence it would be great to keep it in one place which would host all edits made to it rather than let the bunch slowly get less and less synchronized. And there isn't really anywhere else to add the pictures, and they are important for illustrating the transcluded section. We do need the first picture in that section, it is of paramount encyclopedic importance there. Moving the picture down the text simply moves the problem down the text. At my screen resolution of 2560x1440 there is no cure to this sandwiching.
 * I'm sorry it comes out this way but the other options are worse.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. I also realize now that the infobox is even longer in some articles, sandwiching the entire section. I'd agree it's not ideal, but the alternatives would cost a useful illustration or more serious formatting issues, so I'm inclined to leave it as is now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it help if we put the image to the right, forcing it to follow any infobox? This could even be made optionally per article (using a parameter). -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It could exist as a parameter, but forcing these images below the infobox will (1) risk displaying the images outside their associated section (this would be even worse in articles such as rutherfordium with longer infoboxes) and (2) require rearranging all the images in the article to keep a left-right alteration. I'm not seeing a good way out. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from ComplexRational
I have made a few substantive edits to the article myself, but as documented in the talk page chronicles, most of my work on this article has been as a reviewer; it has been a pleasure to read and review it. It has definitely come a long way since the first FAC; it is clear and complete, does not leave burning questions, and seems much more understandable to a layperson (compared to the time of the first FAC), as much of the jargon is explained. That said, I would like to highlight a few more things before offering my support. ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The atomic number is the number of protons in an atomic nucleus. – anyone reading the article should know this; at most, a parenthesized definition such as "atomic number (number of protons)" is enough.
 * Addendum: to avoid breaking the text flow (as pointed out by, the next sentence should be shortened or cut as well; we don't need to define the more common terms in this article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to a parenthesis. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've given it more thought and I don't see what can be done to help this without removing important information, but I'd like to hear from you if you think otherwise. You see, I want to mention the following points:
 * The heaviest element in nature is uranium;
 * Elements can be referred to by their atomic numbers;
 * The first element heavier than uranium was synthesized in 1940;
 * Elements through 101 were discovered in Berkeley;
 * Starting with element 102, a new contender emerged in Moscow/Dubna;
 * and so on.
 * The current text seems optimal to me to make those points. Note j could be remade to also differentiate elements through 101 from elements 102 onward by their synthesis method.--R8R (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It flows fairly well as is, but atomic number is mentioned earlier as well, and I don't believe a parenthetical definition would cost too much meaning or flow as opposed to the current standalone sentence for a basic definition. Either way could conceivably be workable; I agree with your points, but don't want to include an extra explanation if it is not necessary.
 * This might turn out to be a matter of preference, but nothing is lacking either way, so I won't let this hold up my support. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've given it some more thought and I figured I could contract the text without compromising the ease of reading.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * was discovered in 1940 at the University of California in Berkeley, California, United States. – I do not believe the detail in note [j] is necessary. Since this section does not provide background information on the topic, the exact details of how neptunium was discovered are not important to this topic.
 * OK, I've removed note j. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about it some more. The point of that note was that that reaction was different from what we've described so far ("combines two other nuclei of unequal size" -- a neutron is not a nucleus, and the reaction itself isn't precisely in the same category, as I have described in that note), and a note seems suitable to point out this small difference.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer appending the sentence Elements through 101 were discovered... and stating there that neutron capture and alpha irradiation were used in these discoveries, and that they are not nuclear fusion per se. I feel this would flow better than a note, and not drop this extra bit of context.
 * Sounds good but alpha particles do qualify as nuclei, so technically that is nuclear fusion?--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically it is, this change is just to differentiate these techniques from light-ion bombardment. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I've thought more about it, I think the important distinction here is that elements through 100 were discovered by having uranium absorb neutrons, and then we hit a wall that prevented from more discoveries in that manner, and element 101 had to be discovered via bombardment by whole nuclei. In fact, even the first publication on synthesis of element 100 followed after a bombardment of uranium by oxygen, rather after endless absorption of neutrons. I think I'd rather highlight that; what do you think?--R8R (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of natural breaks. One is where the discovery became physics instead of chemistry (E102), another is after you hit the fermium wall (E101). The important thing IMHO is when it really became a one-atom-at-a-time thing, so I agree with you that this is the one to highlight. Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still pondering this. We indeed can say this, but should we? After all, the section is supposed to be about the discoverers, rather than discovery methods. It appears to me that what exactly the synthesis methods for all those elements were is quite off-topic for hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have considered this and I think I was right to say we shouldn't say this just because we can because we go rather off-topic otherwise. Although if you disagree, I'll be eager to listen to you.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good as is. I agree that this section should not detail discovery methods, for those are explained in detail elsewhere and would indeed stray off-topic. Since that note is no longer in this section, we can consider this adequately resolved. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The more nucleons there are in a nucleus, the more energy there is for binding the nucleons. – I'm unsure about this. To an uninformed reader, it would suggest that heavier nuclei are more stable, not less stable (after 62Ni). This could be removed together, a link to an article such as nuclear binding energy should be sufficient.
 * I've copyedited a previous sentence to make it clear enough.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's better, though I'd also suggest changing this to "the more total energy" to make it obvious that more nucleons have more total energy, but are not more stable as a result. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did some more copyediting; please see the results.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearer now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * hypothesized a different mechanism – proposed or suggested would read better in my opinion, as these experiments were soon conducted, and hypothesized connotes greater uncertainty than I understand from the source.
 * Changed to "proposed". Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei – I suggest adding somewhere, perhaps in parentheses, that this refers to symmetric fusion, so that readers have a short and to-the-point connection.
 * I have my doubts about that, though I'm eager to see what I could be missing. You see, "symmetric fusion" is also rather vague, and there's nothing to link that to, so I wonder if it's going to create even more confusion instead (it would need an explanation in the likes of what we already have: "more equal atomic numbers").--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * True, we should keep it as simple and straight-to-the-point as possible. I think we can leave this one as is. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * – note [t] is definitely not needed; these symbols are introduced and used earlier in the article. I suggest removing it entirely.
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That the note was misplaced is clear enough, but have the terms really been introduced by the time we first use those letters? if so, where?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not all consistent (Z is introduced in the infobox, the others are thrown around). To make it unambiguous, I suggest adding them to the transcluded short introduction if possible. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding has been that the infobox doesn't matter (it's more of a data sheet rather than article text). It appears to me that the note is best restored at the first occurrence of these letters in the text (currently "the vicinity of Z = 110–114"). I also think that there is no room for these symbols in our short introduction.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Only thing is they're not all introduced in one place. Atomic number is introduced in the context of uranium (discovery section), mass number could be added in the note dealing with nuclide notation (note [k]), and I don't see neutron number anywhere before the isotopes section. Working with these is doable, it's just not as consistent as we'd like. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we have to play with the cards we've been dealt. Since that appears to be okay with you, I have restored the notation note at the first occurrence of this notation in the text.--20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No results have been released. – citation needed, and date needed. Otherwise, some more definite statement should be made in the article (if necessary, about the fact that no results have been released, structured similarly to hassocene at the end).
 * I have updated this paragraph.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Atomic nuclei show additional stability...indicate closure of "sub-shells". (4 sentences) – since the sections have been rearranged, I suggest moving these sentences up to the isotopes section, and introducing the island of stability and the nature of 292Hs differently here.
 * Good one; please see my edit. Comments are welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The flow is much better now. The island of stability is appropriately introduced, and the part about 292Hs in nature is both contextualized and focused. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This in turn increases the gravitational attraction – a dubious tag was added, and looking at it, I also am inclined to question because gravitational attraction isn't the dominating force at the atomic scale. This could perhaps be simplified as well, as a more thorough explanation would require more jargon and stray off topic. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good tag, and I'll address it below.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded there.--R8R (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we have alt text for the last two images? The diagrams are pretty straightforward, but the captions should at least be converted to alt if not supplemented by something else explanatory.
 * But they do, don't they? What pictures are you referring to exactly?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I missed the way it was formatted. My mistake. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced. – how come you re-added this? I removed it because it is outdated and inaccurate; a more recent source says that ~100 flerovium atoms have been synthesized in total, many of which decay to hassium, not including the many hassium atoms directly synthesized and/or used for chemical studies. I think we're better off without it unless a very recent (2019 or 2020) source gives a number; someone else will inevitably comment that this is outdated or note the inconsistency across articles. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this has to do with Hurricanehink's comments below about how much Hs has ever been produced. I personally think it makes some sense to make it clear to the reader what kinds of quantities we're talking about. (If you can count the atoms, you have basically nothing.) However maybe it's better to instead stress that you get only one atom at a time (as the events are surely widely spaced apart in time): it doesn't quite make sense to ask how much Hs has been produced because by the time you produce the second atom, the first is long gone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this idea came to me after I saw the comment a comment by Hurricanehink below. It appears to me that it's a good idea to have a crude estimate to get some sense of how research there has been into the element. To me, it doesn't seem like 2011 is that long ago given that I don't find it reasonable to have a precise estimate in the first place, but if it helps, I've seen some similar estimates dated 2019: one, two.
 * I'm sorry, I genuinely don't remember us discussing this before.--R8R (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2019 estimate might be a better place to start if you believe it's a good idea. I feel it's already emphasized that several experiments were performed, and it seems clear to me (but maybe not all readers) the contrast between the amount of research done on hassium vs. all heavier elements (as noted in their respective articles). And you're right, I don't think we discussed it. I removed it in this edit, which I surprisingly remember, and was genuinely convinced I did it much more recently than December 2018. I still feel the same way about it now, though, but I'm open to a less crude estimate to give a general idea if there is a recent source available. ComplexRational (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've put in the two references I mentioned above and modified the sentence somewhat. Does it look good for you?--R8R (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks better. It leaves room to account for what I mentioned, and you're right that if there were over 1,000 atoms, the word choice would reflect that (rather than simply over 100). Also, for future reference, we say "on the order of" rather than "in the order of"; I made that correction. More English language peculiarities... anyway, I think we can consider this resolved. I'll review the rest of the comments hopefully tomorrow or over the weekend. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip; I think you mentioned it to me some time before but evidently I may not always be the fastest learner.
 * I'll gladly wait for your upcoming responses.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All done. RL has been quite a mess and mentally very taxing this week, so I apologize for not finishing sooner. I have one open comment still, and would like to resolve that, but this article has come a long way over the past year and with all the changes enacted, I'm happy to support now. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! There's no problem with waiting whatsoever since I'm not active every day, too. I hope you're doing fine. I took another look at the last issue you raised and I think I found a good solution.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink
Support - I came here from an FAC I'm co-nomming, hoping you might be able to review it if you have the time. Alright, elements! Here we go.
 * The lightest isotopes, which usually have shorter half-lives, were synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei and as decay products. The heaviest isotope produced by direct fusion is 271Hs; heavier isotopes have only been observed as decay products of elements with larger atomic numbers. - source?
 * That phrase is covered by the table in that section, and the table is well-referenced.
 * have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei. - ditto
 * This one is covered by the references earlier in that sentence. I put them there for the convenience of the reader who may want to check the sources so they could see which part of the sentence is covered by what.
 * and the fact that hassium (and its parents) decays very quickly. A few singular chemistry-related properties have been measured, such as enthalpy of adsorption of hassium tetroxide, but properties of hassium metal remain unknown and only predictions are available. - I'm guessing these refs are already elsewhere in the article.
 * Yes. The decay part is covered by the table in the Isotopes section, and the chemistry part is covered by the Experimantal chemistry section.

All in all, the article is pretty technical, but for an element that none of will ever touch or interact with, I'm glad that you were so thorough in your research, so I could read all about it. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you dealing with the dubious - discuss tag in the Relativistic effects section?
 * Yes, I have responded to it below.
 * Thank you very much. I hope your read wasn't overwhelming; the topic is indeed quite technical but I generally strive to write in a manner that is as accessible to everyone as possible. I'll try to review your article during the next week; if I haven't done so by the end of it, please feel free to point that out to me.--R8R (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you add those sources in then? If the sources are in the table, could you just re-add it to the prose? I always look out for any paragraph that doesn't end in a source. Also, one last thing I thought of. Is there any estimate for how much Hassium has ever been produced? You mention in the lead "minuscule quantities", but I don't see where in the article you specify that amount. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in understanding that you mean re-adding the reference for the first point you raise?
 * Correct. I notice a few sections that don't have any citations at the end: 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion", 2nd and 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes", and the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", which... I noticed "No results have been released." IDK what's appropriate for chemistry articles, but maybe add a "As of 2024 " in this sentence? Tough to cite a negative though. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for lack of citations at the end of paragraphs: I have generally applied my common sense and the Wikipedia policy (luckily, the two coincide): I put citations wherever the information could actually be challenged by a curious reader. I generally doubt it that somebody is actually going to question the nomenclature (as in the 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion") when the physics behind it is cited. Sometimes, paragraphs end on statements that I expand on in the following paragraphs (2nd paragraph of "Isotopes"). The sentence ending the 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes" is referenced, it's just the references for the convenience of a curious reader willing to check the sources are not at the end of the sentence. As for the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", it is indeed hard to cite a negative but luckily there's something coming our way, so I'll expand on this statement regardless of whether the report has actually been released.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence," so that's now out of the way too.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is one vague estimate which has been reproduced a few times. I don't know the ultimate origin of the estimate (the book I found it in doesn't use in-line citations) but it's rather believable. Added it in the beginning of the Isotopes section.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that bit, but could you improve the wording of the bolded part - "As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced" - grammatically it could be stronger. For instance, "As of 2011, the amount of Hassium atoms ever produced numbered in the hundreds." I hope that still implies the same meaning, and it could still be written stronger. It's a shame the source wasn't more specific, like giving a range, or giving some cap. More than 100 could be 1,000 or a million, which is different when it comes to microscopic quantities. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I went for the time being for "As of 2019, the quantity of all hassium ever produced was in the order of hundreds of atoms." This seems good enough for me. I frankly rather doubt it that anyone would assume that if it there were a few thousands of atoms that anyone would mention merely "more than 100". That is mathematically correct but that's not how real language usually works :) but the combination of sources makes me even more confident in the statement as I gave it.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Readded the particular source citing the sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Your wording for "hundreds" works great.I'm picky, and for all of the hard work you've put into it, you should be proud of what you've written (with other writers, yea, Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, but I know what it's like doing the bulk of the work for a very niche subject, and as a fellow science nerd, I appreciate your work on such an elementary article) . Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Most elements are not as niche, but it's good to branch out every once in a while. I should be able to start a review on your article on Sunday.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from profdc9
''As atomic number increases, so does the electrostatic attraction between an electron and the nucleus. This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn increases the gravitational attraction between the electron and the nucleus'' I do not believe the description of the change in the interaction due to the relativistic velocities of the inner shell electrons should be described as gravitational attraction. Gravity (in so far as is known) is a separate force from the electromagnetic interaction binding electrons to the nucleus. Gravity is many orders of magnitude smaller in strength than the electromagnetic force and so gravity plays essentially no significant role in determining the electronic structure of any atom. The effect being considered, the relativistic increase in mass-energy of the electron as it approaches light speed, is an effect known in special relativity and does not the require gravitational considerations of general relativity. That said, whether or not the relativistic trends of the lanthanide group persist or not in the actinide group, is outside of my expertise, with the increased screening of s and p orbitals resulting in higher electron affinities for actinides than lanthanides, as mentioned stabilizing the +8 oxidation further of hassium over osmium, though this summary seems to suggest such effects.


 * Indeed. Thank you very much for taking your time to write this comment. As I was writing that, I was rather confused myself about why greater mass would play a role anyway. Your comment prompted me to look it up, and I got it now. Please see if it's good enough now.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from DePiep

 * About section title "#Introduction". It is the first section, depth h2 (==). This is confusing since the lead (top) section performs this task already implicitly (see WP:LEAD for example: Introduction is a synonym even). Also, as it stands it suggests or states that it is an introduction to the article topic (i.e., hassium). This confusion can easily be removed by changing this section title into "Introduction to the heaviest elements", "Introduction to heavy elements", or something alike. A similar issue is likely to appear in all articles with this introduction transcluded. (Noted before ). -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A heading such as Introduction to superheavy elements or similar would be fine with me, and avoid this ambiguity. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be fine if we didn't use the same introduction for elements 102 and 103, too. Does Introduction to the heaviest elements work for you?--R8R (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, there's that. Introduction to the heaviest elements works. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK for this appreciation. I note, just a note, that the reuse of the section now implies a sub-optimal outcome (compromises to keep the whole). For a TOC, these section titles are very long (trying to squeeze too much into it?).
 * About actual proposed section names: I understand you mention E102 and E103, nobelium and lawrencium, because they are not 'superheavy' (a definition not clarified nearby, that is: a reader might easily miss this detail&mdash;as I do. Doesn't this say the wording, trying to define it, is unfit for all 16 articles?).
 * I'd prefer a short, crisp sectiontitle, aimed at the TOC, not detailed; no need to put the excact definition of 'heavy' or 'superheavy' in this sectiontitle. I prefer like Introduction to [super]heavy elements. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify my preference: I prefer any of the two proposed here (not using [ ] brackets); actual choice should be short, but in no way incorrect or confusing (up to the specialists). Changing between the transcluding articles may occur AFAIK. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to the heaviest elements Introduction to superheavy elements
 * I wouldn't worry about getting a sub-optimal outcome because I'm certain what we got isn't one. There is at the highest count one small part of the text which could in principle differ at all, and the difference would be very small anyway. And even at that, that's not a distinction I'd want to draw anyway.
 * Note that the notion of "superheavy elements" is explained in a note. Regardless, the "heaviest" elements that we're talking about is not a well-defined term like "superheavy elements"; it's merely used for convenience for as many elements as it could reasonably take. In our case, the defining principle that highlighted the need of this introduction in the first place is the synthesis method. The introduction focuses on synthesis and the general principle used for elements 102+.
 * To me, it seems like "Introduction" is just fine. I'll also note that we have articles like Introduction to quantum mechanics or Introduction to genetics, which go beyond their respective lead sections. If we are to make a longer title, then we should be accurate about it. "Introduction to heavy elements" would be plain confusing: when I think of heavy elements, I think of mercury or lead, not rutherfordium or hassium. "Introduction to superheavy elements" is better but again, we use the same text in nobelium and lawrencium. "Introduction to the heaviest elements" avoids this problem and is about as long anyway.--R8R (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think "Introduction" is fine, wrt my objections? The example "Introduction to quantum mechanics" is not applicable here, as the title is a higher level instead; sections titles do not conflict. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You see, I have never really thought of the lead section as of an introduction. From my (writer's) perspective, you first write an article and then you summarize it in no more than four paragraphs which is as much as most people will read. Hence to me, that's what it is: a summary.
 * That being said, I do not want to dismiss your objections entirely, which is why I am trying to consider other possible section titles.--R8R (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I like "Introduction to the heaviest elements". After all, it is not just about element 108. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK for the writing process, but in this case the result has this flaw: an "==Introduction==" only can refer to the title (to mean: 'Introduction of hassium' then). Which does not cover the content of the section correctly. Secondary, the (possible, partial) overlap with the implicit concept of the lede is adding up to the confusion. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Introduction to hassium" meaning wouldn't at all be wrong. The whole point of this section is that it applies not only to the heaviest elements in general, but also to each element individually. It's only an introduction to the heaviest elements as much as it is an introduction to hassium, an introduction to copernicium, to flerovium, and so on. It's just that it's easier to take this introduction to hassium into context of that it applies also to many other elements, but the idea that this text is an introduction to hassium alone is also completely correct. This, come to think of it, is another thing I like about the shorter section title.
 * "Introduction to the heaviest elements" is also fine by me. I still don't see the advantage "Introduction to superheavy elements" compared to it. It narrows the scope by including two elements (or even more, depending on how you count) for which this introduction also applies perfectly well, which goes against the very point of generalization which is why we can't have "Introduction" in the first place. That is because "superheavy elements" is a chemical concept, and the introduction is not about chemistry, so there's no reason to stick to it in its title. And "Introduction to superheavy elements" is not really shorter either, see for yourself:
 * So since Double sharp also likes this idea, I'll change the title to "Introduction to the heaviest elements" for the time being, although if you have another reason to have a different title, I'll gladly consider it.--R8R (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I've made the change, the longer title seems rather clumsy but we can live with that if considering the lead section an introduction is actually a thing.--R8R (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The lede, I suppose, is more of a summary than an introduction. OTOH, whenever you have some stuff before a bunch of level-3 sections, then I can see a sort of quasi-lede being used as an introduction. Anyway, I like what we have now ("Introduction to the heaviest elements") because it tells us what we're going to get in that section. Double sharp (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Afternote: I find the notion that the original "Introduction" it can rightly be read as "Introduction to hassium" incorrect. That is not the content of the section. Also, the original source article title also so. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I conclude consensus for the change. This also implies the same change for the other transcluding element articles. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * About section #Discoverers of transuranium elements prior to element 108.
 * 1. The introduction The chemical element with the highest atomic number ... by observation in nature (4 sentences) is only about the general Z=A+N description. I don't think this is needed. By now and by here in the article, concepts of "heavy" and "atomic number" should be clear. First suggestion: remove those [four senteces], and adjust next sentence.
 * Sorry to say this, that's not what those sentences are about. They are about what the heaviest element in the nature is (from what point discoveries by synthesis begin). There is no mention of N or A whatsoever. Another point is to introduce the "element XX" terminology which the general reader may be unfamiliar with. Removing those sentences would make the text less readable as per what I just mentioned.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. Why this section at all? An old introduction to the transfermium wars that was kept? It has nothing to do with hassium, and does not even make an introduction to it (or its discoverers). Also, to me it occurred as an extension/protraction of sorts to the previous section. What would the article lack when we remove this section? -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two main stories to uncover in history of discovery of an element such as hassium: one is that there is a great amount of technological/scientific developments that are needed for the discovery, and the discovery is a scientific achievement regardless of who achieves it. The other story is that there are different scientific teams seeking to write themselves down in history as discoverers. This subsection is an introduction to the latter story (and the next one introduces the reader to the former). This section ends on the very important idea that there is this conflict and that other teams are a part of this. Even though the lab in Berkeley did not claim discovery of element 108, it is still important because its other claims clashed with the German claim to the displeasure of both the Americans and the Germans.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * About section #Cold fusion, and #Reports, subsections of #Discovery.
 * 1. Another pre-discovery section, and an overall generic introduction. It does not specifically lead to 108. My first idea is to merge relevant parts into the actual discovery-of-hassium section.
 * I beg to differ, it is very relevant and not generic. The cold fusion technology was only useful for discoveries of a limited number of elements (107 through 113). And it's important because even though you can figure out that 88 + 20 = 108 or 82 + 26 = 108 (those reactions are mentioned in the reports section), if you want to really understand the subject you need to know why those were the combinations used and not, say, 96 + 12 = 108.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. The section Hassium does describe the actual discovery. For this, its title is a bit understating. Maybe the cold fusion + and reports (process of discovedry and claim) could make a strong centerpiece of #Discovery. -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I really do give a positive answer to at least something but I find myself unable to do so. I think "Reports" is a solid title. That you report a discovery and that you think you have made a discovery doesn't mean you have, and any discovery needs a confirmation. Arbitration is a fairly short section because it would otherwise be too technical. Naming is an important section, not scientifically but symbolically: as in any human endeavor, there are people whose feelings are an important part of the picture: in this case, the feelings in question are the desire to discover something new and be the first to do so and the desire to get recognized for it.
 * If you think there's anything important missing, I'm all ears. A comment like "maybe it could make a strong centerpiece" is hard to react to especially when I think it already is already satisfied.
 * There are important things about a discovery other than the experiment itself. I think I covered them all. If you think otherwise, again, I'll be glad to consider that.
 * Also, since you knew this article would be at a FAC, I would've appreciated it if you had made your big content comments before the process started. I hope we can make this a common practice in the future.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try to respond tonight.--R8R (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, alas I can't do it today, but I have an answer in mind and I'll try to write it down tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How are things here now? , did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Naypta
I've not conducted a broad review of sources for the statements here, I'm mostly focusing on the prose and text.
 * Hassium has been made only in laboratories in minuscule quantities; its possible occurrence in nature has been hypothesized but no natural hassium has been found so far - this sentence feels a bit messy to me. Perhaps one way of improving it might be "Hassium has only been produced in a laboratory, in very small quantities. Natural occurrences of the element have been hypothesised, but none has ever been found"?
 * I'm not sure about this one. I liked the rest of your copyediting suggestions, but I'm not sure about this one in particular. would you provide a third opinion?--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I actually do like Naypta's suggestion here. Double sharp (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay then! Copyedited as advised.--R8R (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, in 1978 - does this really need the full location spelled out like this? Just "in 1978 in Dubna, a town in the Soviet Union" I would think would suffice. Likewise, Darmstadt, Hesse, West Germany could just as well skip out Hesse.
 * I have picked up the habit of writing longer location names from the Americans. You see, when they name a town, they normally add the name of the state it's in. It makes perfect sense to me: the United States is a big country, and getting a tiny bit of context is helpful to not feel completely adrift before an unfamiliar city name: you probably don't know what kind of a city "Jefferson City" is, but you know where Missouri is, so "Jefferson City, Missouri" won't sound quite as alien. Now, my understanding has been that English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia that is written in English rather than a Wikipedia oriented in all matters on native English speakers, and there is no preference with respect to toponyms. My understanding is that, say, "Wixhausen, Germany" is as understandable to an average German as "Jefferson City, United States" to an average American, that's why I opt to use the province/region/state name, too, if the country is big enough. With respect to Soviet places in particular, I also mention the name of the corresponding Soviet republic because those republics eventually became independent countries that exist to this day and that generally kept the Soviet subdivisions.
 * In the case of this particular article, these clarifications are also useful because they serve as a subtle hint to the names mentioned in note n.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hrm. MOS:GEO calls for the same name as the article title, but I think at least the state name should be incorporated here too, to clarify the political undertones involved. I'm still not convinced that this level of disambiguation is necessary, though; "Moscow Oblast" to a lot of people doesn't mean very much, either. It's like me saying Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, United Kingdom - I mean, yeah, that's a place in the UK, but most people outside the UK wouldn't be able to say where in the UK it is, with or without the intervening "Carmarthenshire"! Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems fine that most people won't get it because some people will. There will always be people who won't get it. I think that, for example, in the Jefferson City example above, there are people from India, to name a country where English is the official language, that won't be helped by the addition of "Missouri." Having these subdivisions also makes a consistent format for places, and I think that consistency is a good thing (this text also has "Berkeley, California, United States"; we wouldn't want to lose "California," right?). And I must say I like how the article also mentions moscovium and ruthenium that are named after the Moscow Oblast and Russia, respectively, not to mention that this article is about an element that is named after Hesse, so there's another reason to have those names. It does genuinely seem better this way but this is most certainly not the hill I'm ready to die on, so I'll call for a third opinion. would you lend us a hand?--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, because of the connexion to note o, I favour keeping the full names as R8R suggests. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm still not sure it's the best way of putting it, but I won't object on that basis. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * have only been partly characterized but they compare well should probably be have only been partly characterized, but they compare well.
 * You're right; after reading your comment, I checked the rules on punctuation, and from what I've read, you're completely right.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Section heading Introduction to the heaviest elements should probably just be "Introduction" for consistency with other similar articles.
 * I don't really know. I am with you on this one, but there have also been other opinions (see discussion on this page). Perhaps this will be discussed one more time at WT:ELEM when this FAC is over.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I see. Perhaps a broader discussion at WT:ELEM is appropriate, although I still think ideally that discussion should be had separately to here, and here we should use the status quo until a change is made over there more broadly. and, any thoughts? Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I seriously understood that this matter was discussed & concluded at #Comments_from_DePiep. There, also the consistency was mentioned as in: these other articles should have the same change. Despite of this reopening of sorts, I claim established consensus. User:Naypta, did you see that sequence? -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think a consensus at one article's FAC is enough to change eighteen only loosely related articles, even if it were the case that a consensus in favour of that change were established here in particular. I am minded to suggest that such a decision should accept comments from a broader audience, including any interested contributors from those articles. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Hassium article was discussed there, and concluded. Now you introduce WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, which is not correct logic (and still: the arguments might well be valid in these other articles. IOW: your otherstuff argument flipped ;-) ). Now did you read the thread I mentioned, and how would you follow up on that one? -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I most seriously think that the discussion has concluded, and if wants to reconsider the conclusion, the place to go is: there. (Not here, no two-place talks). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, this is a textbook example of WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, which explicitly states arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, and such edit-for-consistency was concluded in the original thread. However, in this thread you argue that that is not correct. Anyway, no need to reopen that talk on a different place, since at least that does not use the existing discusison &* conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may, can I suggest we leave it as it is and then re-negotiate this title problem at WT:ELEM when this FAC is over? This seems like such a small problem that is to be re-negotiated anyway--R8R (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've struck this point on these lines - not because I don't think it's an issue, but on the basis of venue. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully that makes some semblance of sense! Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 20:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with that the section Discoverers of transuranium elements prior to element 108 doesn't really seem to be relevant here. Per FACRIT 4, an FA should "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and [use] summary style" - I reckon this probably ought to be a link to another article, with perhaps a much smaller introduction linking it in in terms of its relevance to this article.
 * Again, you see, the title of that subsection doesn't sum up what the reader is meant to take away from this section (if they don't manage to learn all of it, that is). If I were to summarize the subsection in two sentences, it would be like this: "Elements have been discovered by synthesis since 1940. There was a race between different institutes to discover new elements." Neither is really about the institutions themselves as the title suggests, so maybe another title could be better (I haven't come up with such a title so far), but speaking about content rather than titles, the content is actually important as an introduction into the story of discovery of hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the content as well as just the heading, but I don't think that content necessarily belongs in this article. It's explicitly not talking about the actual subject of the article, but rather laying background for it; to comply with summary style, that background probably belongs somewhere else, with a brief mention given to it in either the lead or another section as appropriate. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take a few days to think it over. Meanwhile, I'd also appreciate an opinion from you here.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave it some more thought and I figured you were right. I have yet to add the appropriate citations, but the text itself looks good.--R8R (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added the appropriate citations.--R8R (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Couple of bits on no then-known fissioning nucleus showed similar parameters of fission:
 * no then-known sounds a bit strange to my ear - "no fissioning nucleus known at the time" would perhaps be a less awkward way of phrasing that.
 * Good one; rephrased as advised.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is fissioning nucleus a common term for a nucleus undergoing fission? It sounds a bit strange to my ear - I've heard fissile before for one that's capable of "fissioning", but never "fissioning" to describe the actual action. Then again, I'm not a physicist!
 * Looks like it; this is indeed a term that is limited to nuclear physics.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium should be known as - to a non-scientific reader (although I suppose they're unlikely to have read this far anyway!) the "should be known" here might be confusing, because obviously Mendeleev's nomenclature applies only prior to discovery. It might be worth giving it a rephrase to something along the lines of "Under Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium would be known as".
 * Thank you; your suggestion is actually better. The original phrase has been with us since what feels like forever, and nobody really questioned it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Although these recommendations were widely followed in the chemical community, most scientists in the field ignored them - two problems:
 * scientists in the field is ambiguous - which field? Clearly chemists are also "scientists in the field", if "field" is not disambiguated.
 * I rephrased this a little bit to match the source a bit more closely.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhat more importantly, the attached inline citation does not appear to support this (quite controversial) statement.
 * Luckily enough, the statement is supported. See specifically the part between "LÖ: Did the system work then, or were these names and symbols simply ignored?" and "and the name you proposed for your element."
 * I assume you're referring to However, neither side was interested in the systematic naming scheme in their scientific articles - trouble is, this isn't just testimony of what another person said, it's a journal, quoting someone, quoting something someone else said, about something which yet another person did. That's... a long chain for that information to follow, and I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source for that claim as a result. It could probably use at least an additional reference somewhere else to confirm it. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the new source I added (Greenwood and Earnshaw, published 1997, so the year hassium got its final name officially) supports this: "A systematic naming scheme was approved by IUPAC in 1977 but is not widely used by researchers in the field". Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In case we need any more sources, we could also use Wapstra 1991, p. 882.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * well-established nuclear shells, and the existence of these nuclear shells is somewhat repetitive; the second "nuclear shells" could probably be just "shells".
 * Indeed.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * that 108 is a proton magic number for deformed nuclei—nuclei that are far from spherical—and 162 is a neutron magic number for deformed nuclei - there's repetition here, too; a rephrase to something like "that 108 is a proton magic number, and 162 is a neutron magic number, for deformed nuclei (nuclei that are far from spherical)" might be of use.
 * I don't want to parenthesize the definition of deformed nuclei as I want to stress that this term is important in this text. Perhaps we could replace the second "deformed nuclei" with "such nuclei"; I hope that does the trick, but if not, please say so and I'll think more about it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a parenthetical would do the job nicely there, sure. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * further research is required, including more accurate measurements of - perhaps it might be worth clarifying here why the research is required; something like "there are currently insufficient[ly accurate] measurements of ... to be able to ascertain information about the interaction with silicon nitride" might work.
 * Thank you very much for this comment. One of the things I like about Wikipedia editing the most is that it helps you train the art of writing. By writing texts, you learn to communicate with people more clearly so that they easily understand what you are writing to them and they don't have any questions you don't want them to have. I'll fix this one shortly.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have clarified this.--R8R (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for dropping by, I will try to respond today.--R8R (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have responded to most of your comments. Your comments have been great: I particularly like getting comments from people who are not very familiar with the subject at hand very well because such people tend to look at a text differently, and they can spot some things I can't. I hope your read wasn't too overwhelming, at least the first couple of sections. Thank you very much for your comments!--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Some thoughts above where appropriate. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * may I ask you to strike those comments you consider resolved? It would help enormously to keep track of those comments that are yet to be resolved.--R8R (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorted, cheers! Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have responded to the rest of your comments. I did as advised with two exceptions: I kept the long location format after my co-nominator Double sharp has come along and said he was in favor of keeping them in this particular article, and suggested we leave the "Introduction" vs. Introduction to the heaviest elements" debate for a later discussion at WT:ELEM. Can I consider at this point I have resolved all issues you raised, or do you disagree or have any more comments?--R8R (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Happy to support :) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48 (support)
Will review this in the next few days. HaEr48 (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, the article is in good shape, well-written, pleasant to follow, with background info and link provided when necessary. Most of my feedback is on prose and accessibility for non-specialist


 * Well done giving the necessary background info in the introduction section
 * Thank you very much! I like how this introduction came out, too. It was first suggested to me by earlier this year; I would've never figured I could do this without him.


 * if such a decay or a series of consecutive decays produces a known nucleus, the original product of a reaction can be easily determined: Is this because you can arithmetically calculate the sequence of "parents"? If yes, suggest adding "arithmetically" or some such.
 * Sure.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * or one close to it: suggest "or another nucleus close to it", because to make it clearer what "one" refers to
 * Agreed; done.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei result in greater electrostatic repulsion between them, but the greater mass excess of the target nucleus balances it: I guess for a non-specialist reader this needs a bit more explanation. What aspect of this approach causes the atomic numbers to be more equal? What aspect of the target nucleus makes the mass excess greater than the previous approach?
 * As for "What aspect of this approach causes the atomic numbers to be more equal": nothing causes them to be more equal; this is something the researchers can deliberately select because each nucleus has one and only one atomic number. One could say a nucleus is defined by the combination of its atomic number and its neutron number (maybe I don't quite understand the question here?). As for "What aspect of the target nucleus makes the mass excess greater than the previous approach?": similarly to the previous question, mass excess of a given nuclide is a fundamental property of a given nucleus. One could discuss why different nuclei have different mass excesses and how and why the difference manifests itself across nuclei, but a detailed discussion of this is rather off-topic here.
 * Did I answer your questions? It seems that nothing should be done about this, but I'm very willing to stand corrected on this.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On rereading the article, I guess the answer to the first question should have been clear to me, part of the strategy of the older approach was to " to maximize the size difference". As for the second question, why does the newer approach have greater mass excess compared to the older approach? HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this pointed question because the target nuclei in the newer approach have a lower mass excess. This is not very clear in the source; I guess I didn't pay too much attention when writing this sentence.
 * As for your question: completion of a nuclear shell means more stability, i.e. more binding energy per nucleon (binding energy is what's holding nucleons in a nucleus together). More binding energy means less rest energy (you could say that each nucleon has the same finite amount of rest energy, and if some of it is spent on binding nucleons, then there is less energy left alone), and less rest energy means less mass (per the famous E=mc^2 equation). Since so much energy is needed to break the binding of a nucleus (to synthesize a new one, you essentially need to briefly break the target nucleus, and when its structure is broken, the nucleons that formerly constituted it will try to arrange themselves into a new nucleus, but now there are more nucleons from what you've hit the target nucleus with), there is less energy for excitation of the newly formed compound nucleus, which means the chance that this nucleus falls apart immediately is somewhat smaller.
 * I will think how to make this clearer in the article.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of sentences; please see if it's clearer now and if the prose I added is good enough.--R8R (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. I wasn't asking about the mechanics of how mass excess is related to stability, my question was how does cold fusion improve the mass excess? (as opposed to hot fusion) I asked because this sentence "More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei result in greater electrostatic repulsion between them, but the lower mass excess of the target nucleus balances it" gives the impression that the mass excess was one of the advantages of the cold fusion method, despite its higher electrostatic repulsion. But there was no explanation for why. Does this make sense, or was my impression incorrect? HaEr48 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, your interpretation was correct. There was actually a sentence that explains the main advantage of this technique: "This leaves less excitation energy for the newly created compound nucleus, which necessitates fewer neutron ejections to reach a stable state." When I wrote my last reply, I added a couple of sentences that make it clearer hat it is that leaves less energy for neutron expulsion.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * these were assigned to 264108: What does "to be assigned to" mean here?
 * As I have explained in the last paragraph of the introduction, after an experiment the scientists are left with some information on activity they have observed. Then they seek to figure out what was the cause of this activity. When they came to a conclusion what nuclide it was, one could say that this activity was assigned to that nuclide. I don't know if the reader could or should really be aided here, but if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. Maybe the solution is use the same word "assigned" in the intro section? I had read the last paragraph you mentioned, but didn't realize that's what the "assigned" part refer to. HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought about it and reworded the phrase in the description of this 1984 report; should be clearer now.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * GSI also proposed a name for element 108 that had been officially presented at the facility three weeks earlier: At this point, was the proposed name "hassium", or something else?
 * Yes. I didn't mention the name because the section on naming starts right after this sentence.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just mention it? Seems like unnecessary cliffhanger because hassium is only mentioned together with GSI in the fourth paragraph of naming. HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought about it some more, and I figured it would be best to remove any mention of the name in this sentence. Looks good now, and the cliffhanger is longer there, either. What do you say?--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looks better this way. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * and the existence of these shells provides nuclei with additional stability: Is the existence of the shells that provide the stability? Or is it the fact that they are "closed"?
 * They can't be closed if they don't exist :) Generally, the answer is both: existence of these shells means some order in how protons and neutrons are arranged, which provides stability in itself. If a nucleus has the right numbers of protons and/or neutrons, then the shell/s is/are closed, which gives a nucleus even more stability. I think that if this sentence is taken in conjunction with the following one, it becomes more clear.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that they can't be closed if they don't exist, but do they cause stability if they aren't closed? The rest of the second paragraph only mentions the closure, but if the mere existence have the effect too, this sentence is fine. HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the mere existence has an effect, too.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What's with the unreferenced ending in certain paragraphs? E.g. paragraph 2 of #Isotopes and paragraph 2 of #Cold fusion
 * This question has been raised (and answered) during this review: look for the text "Correct. I notice a few sections that don't have any citations at the end" on this page.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "The earlier liquid drop model thus suggested" What is the thus referring to? Is it the theories that proposed greater stability of heavier nuclei, mentioned immediately before this sentence? But isn't instant spontaneous fission the opposite of the proposed greater stability?
 * I will try to explain this here and I'll think how to explain this in the article. "Thus" can be easily omitted. The phrase "it thus appeared that nuclei with Z ≈ 103" also comes from this model. Some rewording is to follow.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited this part of the text; please see if it's good now.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fine now. HaEr48 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Theoretical models predict ... : Are there names for these models? The earlier mentioned liquid drop model and nuclear shell model were also theoretical models, right?
 * Yes; here, too, a rewording could help.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Same as above--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This prediction is supported by the observed 11 millisecond: … I'm confused, is the low half-life due to the previously mentioned low barrier heights, or because of the low odd nucleon hindrance factor mentioned later in the sentence? Or are they the same thing?
 * They are almost the same thing. Low barrier heights are caused by some reasons, and those include the low odd nucleon hindrance factor. If you have any suggestions about how understanding can be aided here, I'm all ears.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe reword "much lower than expected" to something else? (or just extremely low)? The previous sentence ("Nuclides within this region are predicted to have low fission barrier heights ..") already sets the expectation to be low. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed the phrase to "because the hindrance factors from the odd nucleon were shown to be much lower than otherwise expected"; does this seem good?--R8R (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, seem clear enough. HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The isotope table has isotope with m in the number (e.g. 277Hs and 277mHs). Is the meaning of this explained somewhere?
 * I added a small note.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Because the last paragraph somewhat suggests that some Hs isotopes are among the most stable superheavy nucleus, is it possible to add the half lifes of long-lived superheavy isotopes of other elements as a point of comparison?
 * I don't know; I'll think about it. The problem here is both how to formulate such a statement ("most nuclei have a half-life below a microsecond"?) and the relevance of such a comparison; proposal of what half-lives for some superheavy nuclei could be range by many orders of magnitude, and I don't know if fifteen seconds is impressive enough. I'll think about it.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Just curious, how are half-life measured given the low number of atoms ever produced? But fine to leave out if this is too complex to explain.
 * I'd want to explain this myself but I don't understand it well enough myself and I haven't seen an explanation anywhere (so I can't explain this in an article). But the general idea is that the convention in statistics says that a statement is considered true if it is 95% likely to be true. If you have, say, fifteen nuclei that lived something like a second, it could be that the half-life of this nuclide is a billion years, but it looks rather unlikely based on the existing data. That's a low number of experiments leads of a range of uncertainty: a statistician would say that the half-life is one second plus (say) up to 0.2 second or minus up to 0.1 seconds, and even that means that the probability that the actual half-life range is actually within those limits is 95%; there is also a 5% probability that the statistician's guess is wrong.
 * By the way, if you ever hear a poll showed that the citizens of your country are likely to vote one way or another, the figures you hear always have a range of uncertainty and they are also always only 95% likely to be correct. (Sociologist's statistics, of course, is more complicated than this because their results, unlike radioactive decay, are not truly random, but the general idea is still true.)--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe a useful link for this: Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's very interesting. I'm rather ashamed by how I wasn't very good at statistics at university. That was not my area of specialization but it was one subject that I wanted to delve into very much (though I lacked the time for that).
 * I'll read the solution carefully later and see what I can do from there.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, depending on how much technical explanation is needed, it may be fine to leave unexplained in this article (to avoid too much digression). Outside this FAC, half-life might be a good venue for it? HaEr48 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, a complete explanation would be quite an overkill. However, I have added a note on the probabilistic nature of these values based on such small samples.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to describe this as, and link to, a 95% confidence interval? I agree that a lengthy explanation is not required, but this seems to be the appropriate description (and technically accurate term) from what I understand about basic statistics. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this question; it made me consider if this was indeed the case. I have found that it was just that and I have updated the article accordingly.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * as is the case for all 6d metals: Suggest a link to explain what these are, or use other descriptors (e.g. with atomic number in range ...)
 * I can say "transactinides" instead.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The fourth paragraph of #Relativistic effects doesn't explain why/how spin–orbit splitting is specific to Hassium/6d metals, e.g. why doesn't it happen for lighter analogues
 * I think the first paragraph explains it, doesn't it? "Relativistic effects on hassium should arise due to the high charge of its nuclei, which causes the electrons around the nucleus to move faster"---and I also say that the SO splitting is a relativistic effect.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, so it's related to the fact that the electron moves faster? Maybe make the link more obvious in the 3rd paragraph? HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly.
 * I don't exactly understand what you mean by that; could you elaborate?--R8R (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, none of the explanation in the #3 paragraph of "Relativistic effects" is linked to the faster movement of electron. Can you add an explanation of how the high speed comes into the picture in causing the splitting? e.g. "It is most visible with p electrons, thanks to their high speed, which ... " (I don't know if this is correct though). HaEr48 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Since the s and p1/2 orbitals are closer to the nucleus" bit is explained in the previous paragraph; that paragraph also explains why this has to do with relativity ("This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn leads to contraction of the atomic orbitals, most specifically the s and p1/2 orbitals."). In general, the indirect relativistic effect is more of a side effect of the direct relativistic effect from the second para rather than a thing of its own, hence the name.
 * Does this explanation of mine make it clearer or does the text need some more accent on where relativity appears (like "This causes the velocity of the electron to increase to a value comparable to the speed of light")?--R8R (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have explained this.--R8R (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * HaEr48 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * did you see note y that I added yesterday?
 * Generally, the easy way to explain this would be to say that according to the special theory of relativity, both electric fields and magnetic fields are not separate but rather different appearances of common electromagnetic fields; depending on the frame of reference, an electromagnetic field can be more or less electric and more or less magnetic. A magnetic field can only interact with a magnetic field, not with an electric field, but depending on your frame of reference, the electric field can also be a magnetic field. The magnetic field I'm talking about here is the field created by the spin of an electron and the electric field is created by the charge of the nucleus; from the frame of reference tied to the electron, it can be also seen as a magnetic field. There you have two magnetic fields which interact, and that's what the spin--orbit interaction is.
 * I placed that note where I did in order to cover the splitting in the same note, and I couldn't do it before I had introduced the splitting in that paragraph. If you think that note y needs any corrections, clarification, etc., I'm all ears.--R8R (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Therefore, eka-osmium properties… : from the previous paragraph, I get that eka-osmium was Mendeleev's name for hassium, but what does "eka-osmium properties for hassium" mean?
 * I'll think how to explain this. In short, though, the genius of the periodic table is that you can guess properties of an element based on those of its neighbors.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rephrased this a bit and also clarified the eka- prefix when it is first mentioned.--R8R (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The trend of the volatilities of the group 8 tetroxides is known to be...: Based on several paragraphs down, I supposed this is one of the few things that are known experimentally? If yes, suggest adding "experimentally" because previously we were told most of these discussions are theoretical.
 * Agreed; done.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Link "volatility" when first mentioned?
 * Good one, added a link on first mention (in Natural occurrence).--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * in the reaction 248Cm(26Mg,xn)274−xHs (x = 4 or 5): Maybe add a footnote to explain the meaning of this notation, for the uninitiated?
 * Yes, I'll do it later.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I figured it would be better to add a more intuitive notation instead. How does it look?--R8R (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks good, does the "List of hassium isotopes" need to be updated too? Or maybe it's fine because presented this way it's easier to guess what it means. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the list doesn't need any update because that notation is easier to use there (you can omit the isotopes of hassium in question). When I read your comment, I didn't realize we also had reactions in the table. Now that I think about it, I could change back the notation back to the old one and add a note as you have originally suggested. I will also the new notation to that note for comparison, too. Will do later--R8R (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added an explanatory note.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * explain or link what "TASCA" is?
 * I think there is no need for that, it's just a name for a new facility at GSI.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised that a big proportion of the lead (about half of the longest paragraph out of three) is taken up by the credit competition and ruling. Might it be possible to shorten it, and instead give more detail about the synthesis approach?
 * I absolutely agree with you on that we could mention the cold fusion in the lead section; thank you very much, I'll do it later. As for shortening the competition drama, I'm not so sure because it is an huge part of the story of these elements (to be fair, that is partly because there is not that much to tell otherwise).--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've edited the lead section to reflect both of your suggestions here; please see if it's good now.--R8R (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely better, thanks! HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: I will likely claim this review for Wikicup points. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, HaEr48. I always write with common readers in mind, so a thorough read by a non-specialist is very welcome. You can definitely claim your points for this review, they are well deserved; I genuinely enjoy feedback like this review. I will try to start to respond to it tonight.—R8R (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The look labels I have added are meant to be notes for self.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added for my remaining actionable feedback. The rest looks good. HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is a very well-written article on a difficult topic, and the author have responded positively to all my feedbacks. I might still have minor questions about the spin-orbit splitting, but I'll discuss that outside this FAC. HaEr48 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers query Support
Hi, I don't understand "The combination of the two leads to that the". If it makes sense to experts, is there a way of rephrasing it for the rest of us? Similarly "The lightest isotopes, which usually have shorter half-lives,[u] as well as the most were synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei and as decay products." begs the question, Most what?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree, those two are very clumsy wordings. I changed the former to "As a result of the combination of the direct and indirect relativistic effects". As for the latter, two words went missing at some point, and the sentence wasn't that good to begin with, so I simplified it to "Lighter isotopes were usually synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei, whereas heavier isotopes were typically observed as decay products of nuclei with larger atomic numbers."--R8R (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those changes work for me. Another question, I appreciate that small sample sizes make it difficult to measure half lives, but if there have been multiple differing measurements of the half lives are you sure we should take the latest measurement as opposed to quoting differing measurements by different scientists? If the data is pooled and differing measurements are due to more recent ones being drawn from more data, then perhaps the article could say that, and of course in that case latest measures and confidence levels make sense.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall exactly for the sources cited here, but in general, the more recent publications give values based on all the experimental data (including past experiments) rather than only the one described in the paper. That is indeed what gives rise to a difference, and makes the more recent values preferable. The only other difference I could see is that different publications express uncertainty differently. NUBASE gives a symmetrical error margin (a ± b), whereas most others give a 68% confidence interval (corresponding to an error of 1σ) derived directly from the combined dataset. (I presume there is not enough data to reliably use a wider confidence interval.) I chose to include both to avoid confusion from differing approaches or inconsistent datasets, but if you believe this difference in expression (symmetrical vs. 1σ) should be highlighted in a footnote, that can be done. ComplexRational (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. Shifting to Support as an interesting and informative article. I've also proposed it as a suitable metal for one of our service awards.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Looks like we need a source review? And can you revisit? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done do you think I have addressed all points you raised?--R8R (talk)
 * "Because of this energy difference, the former mechanism became known as "hot fusion" and the latter as "cold fusion"". - source?
 * Added.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "However, having too many neutrons per proton, while decreasing electrostatic repulsion per nucleon that negates the binding energy, results in beta decay". - source?
 * Added.--R8R (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "This was intended not only to resolve any future conflicts, but also a number of ones that existed back then" - source?
 * Added.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "In superheavy element research, elements that have not been assigned a name and a symbol, are often referred to by their atomic numbers in lieu of symbols" - source? Check that notes include footnotes
 * In this particular case, we're talking information that is plain trivial. These elements are indeed often referred to by their atomic numbers in lieu of symbols, and I can bring up a few example if you want me to. However, I looked for a source for this before this FAC started and I didn't find any. I presume that is because we're talking a convention that's very unofficial and informal in every possible sense, yet it's still in place. Nobody who comes this far needs an explanation for this, so nobody has written it, either. It really is trivial.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention: I did check the list of notes and I couldn't find any non-trivial unreferenced claims.--R8R (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that these sorts of things may seem trivial to someone who's a subject-matter expert, but we can't assume every reader has that background. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's precisely my point: you don't need any background to understand it, the claim is trivial. There is common knowledge that, while being common, is not trivial, and I add references when I write it; I understand the difference between common and trivial. However, this is not what we have here. The very fact that there is a certain notation does not share any scientific knowledge; it is merely about a notation. I just spent an hour trying to find any source saying that there is this notation but I couldn't find any; at the same time, examples of this notation being used are not difficult to find.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How does FN3 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
 * The essentials of that thesis were published as journal articles; the article names those two articles.--R8R (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the material being cited supported by those journal articles? If so, why not cite them? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at those two articles and it turns out that there was a novel component in that thesis that isn't covered in either article but which we mention and use this thesis for that. However, I have learned that this thesis has been cited in the literature, which satisfies WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties").--R8R (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in when accessdates are included
 * I added a few more so that each time link is given, a value for accessdate is given, except when the linked resource is either doi.org or Google Books (they may not contain the document itself but merely have an entry for it). The list of references should be good now.--R8R (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fn5 appears to be a book chapter but is cited as an article
 * Fixed; thank you.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fn9 should use "pp." and an endash in the title
 * Fixed; thank you.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FN16 is missing publication date
 * Added.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes N+1 a high-quality reliable source? (If this is kept that appears to be the correct work title)
 * N+1 is a major Russian online popsci resource. It was twice awarded the prize founded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia alongside the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Moscow State University.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, please change work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fn18: the link in the work title is not the work actually being cited, and the date doesn't match the source
 * I have corrected the date, but how is the link wrong? Works fine for me, and the title in the URL address is also rather suggestive.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You want to cite a 1974 mystery thriller film? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize you were talking about that wikilink; I thought you were referring to the link to the article. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fn19: work title is not a work - it should either be part of the publisher or left out
 * Indeed, it should be left out.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fn22 and others: there's a specific date provided by the source, why not include it?
 * That is done for consistency. As far as I know, it is fine not to include exact dates unless they are of particular importance, and I'd prefer to have a better organized referelce list.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How does omitting detail improve the organization of the list? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This gives a consistent degree of detail in the list. Like in most instances, all letters of the given names of authors are available, but I stick to only using the initial one so that on a rare case when the whole name is not available, it doesn't fall out of place.
 * By the way, you mentioned below that I should be consistent in whether I include locations for publications. So it appears removing some locations is actually preferable to not removing them in order to achieve a consistent degree of detail (and I will do just that later ;)).--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fn35: given work title should be listed as publisher. Ditto FN47, check for others
 * I honestly don't understand what you want me to do; could you please elaborate? Here's the revision of the article as of when you wrote this review.--R8R (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation templates you're using have a parameter for publisher and parameters for work (and synonyms such as website, newspaper, etc). In these and other cases, you're using a parameter from the latter set when the former would be more appropriate. These cases should be changed to use publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fn41 is missing author
 * Added.--R8R (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FN46 is a dead link
 * Fixed.--R8R (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FNs 6 and 84 are both presentations but are formatted differently
 * In all seriousness, I don't see that. Could you specify how?--R8R (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now 6 and 86: the former has the presentation title in quotation marks, while in the latter case it's italicized; the former has the conference/workshop name italicized and the latter doesn't; the former includes a publisher and the latter doesn't; the latter includes a presentation location and the former doesn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks for the explanation. These two should be good now.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes Geokhimiya a high-quality reliable source?
 * That journal was run by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR back when that article was published.--R8R (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether you include locations for publications
 * Probably it's safer to omit them altogether, unless you can track down every one that's otherwise needed? I vaguely remember discussing this or something similar at the other FAC months ago. ComplexRational (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I generally see little point in having publishers' locations in the online encyclopedia of ours. You can verify a book in a few clicks now, you don't have to contact the publisher across the continent so that they ship your book as you might have had to a century ago.--R8R (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the only location I found.--R8R (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FN141 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanded.--R8R (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)