Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plutonium


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008.

Plutonium

 * Nominator(s): mav (talk), WikiProject Elements

This article was pretty good (A-class but failed GA due to poor citing) before I started working on it a couple months ago. I've since expanded, cited, reorganized, trimmed and checked images as needed per FA standards. Article was previously brought to WikiProject Elements format by Bth (now inactive) in March 2004 and has since been expanded in true wiki-style by many people. I'm now pretty happy with the article and think it now meets all the FA criteria. If not, please tell me what else needs to be fixed and I'll fix it. I of course, support as nominator. mav (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Current ref 25 (Room 405) needs a last access date.
 * Same for current ref 26 (Plutonium: The first 50 years...)
 * Current ref 31 (Martin, James E. ..) is lacking a publisher
 * Current ref 33 (Theodore Gary's...) is lacking a publisher and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd99longworthf deadlinks
 * "End of the Plutonium Age" link also deadlinks.
 * I think current ref 36 (Cohen... ) is lacking the book title?
 * Current ref 39 (Radiological control...) is lacking a last access date
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I'll make sure to fix all that later today. --mav (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the above should be fixed now. Thanks again for noticing that stuff! --mav (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What did you do about the Theodore Gary site? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I replaced that ref. --mav (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The fact that nearly all us nuclear weapon plutonium contains 1% of gallum should be mentioned somewhere more prominent than in the Allotropes section, because it makes using it in nuclear reactors difficult. See Besmann reference in the gallium article)
 * France and the United Kingdom operate PUREX Nuclear reprocessing facilities and use the MOX as regular fuel in their reactors. Germany Belgium and Germany are customers of the facilities and also use MOX. The [World Nuclear Association] states that:2% of the new fuel used today The section Use of plutonium waste is the only place where the MOX is mentioned although it is a significant application only in Europe, but it has to go to the applications section. The fuel is used in normal light water reactors and not in breaders. The section Use of plutonium waste reads like the MOX is something new, this should also be changed to a statement that Plutonium is used for energy production in Europe for decades.  --Stone (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments! I think I have addressed all of them. Please take a look and edit/comment as needed. --mav (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The light reactor vs breeder reactor bit should be fixed now. --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments: Otherwise it looks really well for a FA. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The element normally exhibits six allotropes and four oxidation states but can form one more of each under certain conditions seems awkward
 * I would put the allotropes right after the physical properties.
 * Also, it might help to say exactly which allotrope is referred to in the physical section - since most of the stuff said there is allotrope-dependent.
 * Wasn't there a recent ex-KGB spy supposedly killed in Great Britain with plutonium?
 * With polonium!--Stone (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment and support - suggested fixes (minus the KGB part) done. --mav (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot one thing: the electrical behavior suggests a metalloid character. Has anybody said anything in this sense? Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of my references come out and say that so I don't think we should try to interpret and fill in the blanks. --mav (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything should be addressed now. Please take a look and consider striking, editing or commenting as needed. --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead section is fine. I checked the layout of the remainder of the article. The number and quality of sections, images and references is commensurate with existing featured articles on chemical elements. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I finished reading the article just now. Pending resolution of some minor outstanding issues, I support this nomination. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments: The article is written in a way that is accessible to and informative for a layreader, such as myself. Though, obviously I don't have subject matter knowledge to judge if the article is comprehensive. --Aude (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the physical characteristics section, it starts out saying "The metal has a bright...", but think you should say "Plutonium is a metal, which has a bright" or something like that to make it clear to the layreader that Plutonium is a metal (and not assume the layreader knows that).
 * In the discovery section, change "didn't" to "did not".
 * The Cohen, Bernard L. reference (#39) is misformatted.
 * Thanks for the support and suggestions - which should now be addressed. --mav (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looks pretty good. Some attention to the authors in the references could be given tho. There still are some maintenace tags so those should be addressed. Some refs are in "Baker, Jim" fashion, others in "Jim Baker" and yet other in "J. Baker". Not a huge thing, but it's nice to have around, plus facilitates longterm maintenance. I'll read it in detail to give comments on content.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Format for all authors with easy to distinguish first vs last names fixed. Not sure what to do with Venkateswara Sarma Mallela; V. Ilankumaran; and N.Srinivasa Rao... --mav (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: I'm checking for licensing information only. I am unable to comment on the accuracy of self-made images.
 * I entered an template in File:Pu,94.jpg because it neatens the information. Although the images basically have all the information required in the template, please consider organizing it with a template for image summaries that do not have one right now.
 * Each image should now have that template. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My browser on this particular computer is fairly wide. File:Plutonium ring.jpg and File:Pu-phases.png appear directly opposite of each other, one left and one right, and text runs over Plutonium ring.jpg, making it appear jumbled. You have to make this decision, but is it possible to move one of the images to another section? I don't want to play with the layout since I can't say what section is appropriate for the a particular image. However, I need to point out that this passage in particular on some browsers looks quite bad.
 * My monitor is running at 1900x1200 via Firefox on Ubuntu Linux and I'm not able to reproduce that when maximized... However, I don't think anybody should ever read Wikipedia in a maximized browser session on a high resolution monitor - it is much better to unmaximize your browser or set-up split browsing. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I completely believe File:Hanford N Reactor adjusted.jpg was at the source link, now it says "We are sorry, the document you requested is currently unavailable via this website". Perhaps a backup link?
 * Odd. Then this become no different than if the uploader scanned the image from a book. --mav (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All other images appear to be fine.
 * Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Review by Headbomb

 Oppose  per (take deep breath):


 * Physical
 * Some instances of WP:Jargon are there, nothing too bad but things like α form should a least be wikilinked to something.
 * I think I caught the jargon and explained it a bit better. --mav (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question, are allotropes and phases the same thing here?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Isotopes and synthesis
 * This remark applies to the whole article, but is particularly relevant here IMO. Have you considered using forms such as "Pu-238" and "Pu-239" for the main text, reserving form such as 238Pu for formulas and tables? It would improve readability a lot IMO.
 * I really like that suggestion and implemented it. As a matter of fact, I will propose that as a rule for WikiProject Elements to follow. --mav (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are authors in journals using this formalism though???? Nergaal (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that even matter? We aim to be a fair bit more accessible and readable than journals. --mav (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Medical experimentation
 * Details on the animal experiments would add a lot to this section


 * Nuclear weapons
 * "explosive yield" needs to be wikilinked to something.
 * Now linked to nuclear weapon yield. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Power source
 * For each type of use, you should mentioned if it is still used in this way. For example, if it was used for scuba suit heating, is it still used now?
 * Tone down to "Is is still used to hear scuba suits?


 * General remark
 * Sometimes notes are placed before refs, other times they are after. I would consider place them all before.

Phew. That was long. I hope no one is put off by that list. Very few of these issues are deal breakers on their own, but taken collectively, does not lead me to think this deserved the FA star yet. Many of those are style issue that reflect personal preference, and I only mentioned them to have them considered by the collectivity. But there's of items on that list that do not require a lot of work to strike, and the article would be better off if someone did this work. I'll do some of them myself, but I'm not very knowledgeable about plutonium so someone else will have to work on this as well. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a thorough review! Fixing 90% of that shouldn't be a problem. --mav (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! I see you have beat me to addressing your concerns. Thank you and great work! :) I'll start work on addressing other issues now. --mav (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Status? What is the status on Headbomb's Oppose? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly addressed. Still some points to work on. I've been busy with some end of year stuff but should be able to give this a real big push on the 1st. --mav (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say I'd essentially support it as an FA, but I would like some clarification about phases and allotropes being the same thing or not. Maybe it's been addressed in the article already. The expanding on the animal experiments would be nice, but is not a deal-breaker IMO. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And the cleanup template. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The clean-up template was added by somebody after I submitted this to FAC. A modest expansion and better transitions should satisfy the person who placed it. I'll be working on this article more later today. --mav (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Start of restructure and modest expansion of history section. Hopefully will be done by end of this weekend. --mav (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Section restructured and clean-up template was removed by the person who placed it. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the dabs a while ago early on, and I've again ensured that the only links to disambiguation pages are those made by the hatnotes. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 18:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, as I think that the article is overall of FA quality—but here are some places where I think that the writing should be improved ;) I think that the writing is overall pretty decent: let's fix up these little stumbles. :) { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "These and other properties make the handling of plutonium dangerous and have led to a number of criticality accidents." This sentence needs to be revised: logical analysis reveals that the sentence could be construed as saying that "other properties […] have led to a number of criticality accidents", which is not exactly true. Specifying that it is the radioactivity that leads to criticality accidents would be better.
 * "Fuel grade plutonium contains from 7 to less than 19% percent, and power reactor grade contains from 19% and greater Pu-240" Percent is doubled.
 * "238U + n → 239U (half-life 23.5 min; β−) → 239Np (2.36 ;days; β−) → 239Pu (24,100 years)" I could be mistaken, but something looks fishy about ";days;".
 * "During World War II the U.S. government set-up the Manhattan Project, which was tasked with developing an atomic bomb." The phrase "set-up" up-sets me. :) Surely there's a more descriptive word that can be used here. It's also inconsistent with the nearby "Later, large 200 MW reactors were set up at the Hanford Site […]"…
 * "This critical mass is about a third of U-235." This sentence makes little sense. I'm guessing that it means that a third of the mass mentioned is U-235 rather than plutonium, but the fact that I have to guess is bad. (Edit: It probably actually refers to the fact that plutonium's critical mass is about a third of that of 235U—the lack of a possessive in the sentence throws the meaning off, even, for people who aren't thinking clearly enough. :p )
 * "Mox fuel is used in […]" and "MOX fuel has been in use since […]": please make the capitalization consistent.
 * "[…] plutonium's critical mass is only a third of that of uranium-235's." Either "that of" or "'s" should be removed.
 * The last three sentences in the Flammability subsection of the Precautions section feel very choppy: in particular, the mention of the Rocky Flats fire seems to stick out. Rearranging this section for better flow would be advisable.
 * In notes 7 and 8, there is no space before the parenthetical reference to Emsley, but there is in note 9. If spaces are added (edit: removed), please remember note 2 as well.
 * Thanks for the support and suggestions for improvement. I'll make sure to address each point by the end of this coming weekend. --mav (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'll probably be away for the next week or so, you have my continued support. I've struck some of the issues which I consider obviously resolved: please don't strike the others yourself after responding to them—that way I can, once back, check what's been fixed during my absence more easily. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Something to fix:
 * "Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium and insoluble or only slightly so in solid plutonium."

I'm not sure what this intends to say, but it's not a complete sentence. Please rewrite for clarity. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the writer(s) meant to say "are" instead of "and" on the second instance of the latter. Correcting that would make the sentence more clear, but the "or only slightly so" seems to be saying more "slightly soluble" than "slightly insoluble": this still needs work. If someone can confirm the facts (please), a suggestion for correction, based on my assumptions, would be "Partial exceptions include the refractory metals chromium, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, and tungsten, which, while soluble in liquid plutonium, are insoluble or only slightly soluble in solid plutonium." { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "When exposed to moist air, it expands up to 70% in volume and forms a powder that can spontaneously ignite." [Emphasis mine.] Is this really the elemental plutonium? Or is there a chemical reaction involved? From the "Flammability" section, it looks like this represents oxidation. Axl ¤  [Talk]  13:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", "Nuclear": "Plutonium is a radioactive actinide metal that, with uranium, is one of the few elements with one or more fissile isotopes." Why is uranium singled out as one of the few similar elements? Axl ¤  [Talk]  13:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't "Characteristics", "Nuclear" section describe the alpha decay of Pu-238? I added a brief comment right at the end of the section. From "Applications", "Power source", this property looks quite important. Axl ¤  [Talk]  14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature." I think I know what the author means, but the sentence appears counter-intuitive. Axl ¤  [Talk]  13:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", paragraph 1: "The primary decay modes before the most stable isotope, Pu-244, are spontaneous fission and α emission; the primary mode after is β emission. The primary decay products before Pu-244 are uranium and neptunium isotopes (neglecting the wide range of daughter nuclei created by fission processes), and the primary products after are americium isotopes." Does this mean that uranium and neptunium undergo spontaneous fission and alpha emission to form Pu-244? Pu-244 undergoes beta emission to form americium? This section could be clearer. Axl ¤  [Talk]  14:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", "Isotopes and synthesis", this equation does not appear to be correctly formatted:-


 * 238U(d,2n)238Np → 238Pu + β−

Axl ¤  [Talk]  14:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "History", "Production during the Manhattan Project", paragraph 4: "B, D and F were the initial reactors built at Hanford". I'm surprised that A, B and C weren't the initial reactors built. Axl ¤  [Talk]  15:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The U.S. reactors at Hanford and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina produced 103,000 kg, and an estimated 170,000 kg of military-grade plutonium was produced in Russia. Each year about 20,000 kg of the element is still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry. As much as 1000 tonnes of plutonium may be in storage with more than 200 tonnes of that either inside or extracted from nuclear weapons." Why not use "tonnes" consistently throughout? Axl ¤  [Talk]  15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "History", "Cold War use and waste": "The glass consists of borosilicates mixed with as cadmium and gadolinium". The grammar is incorrect and I don't know what it should be. Axl ¤  [Talk]  21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "History", "Cold War use and waste", is there a reference for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? Axl ¤  [Talk]  22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture caption in "Applications", "Power source" reads "A pellet of plutonium-238, glowing due to blackbody radiation." However the article indicates that plutonium is silvery-white in colour. Is the pellet of Pu-238 really a black body? Axl ¤  [Talk]  22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "Precautions", "Toxicity": "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the increase in lifetime cancer risk for inhaled plutonium as 3 × 10−8 pCi−1.[48]" Unfortunately I can't seem to view the Argonne National Laboratory's fact sheet. Can someone confirm that the fact sheet is still available? Wouldn't "sieverts" be more helpful than "curies"? I would like to review the validity of the cancer risk information. Axl ¤  [Talk]  22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From "Precautions", "Criticality potential": "Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation by the hydrogen in water." [Emphasis mine.] Is "moderation" a technical term? Axl ¤  [Talk]  22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your edits and comments. I'll make sure to address each comment after I address some earlier issues. --mav (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Relatively major referencing issue inotes is not used like it should be. It doesn't produce anything the reader can see. This needs to be fixed (or worked around).Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Inote is being used here for extreme referencing (an allowed use) and for adding page numbers to references that really don't need them b/c their plutonium chapters are only a few pages long. Converting the inotes to inline cites would overwhelm the adjacent text with repetitive inline cites. --mav (talk)

Support and comment by jimfbleak Because of its comparatively large half-life, minute amounts of Pu-244 can be found in nature. Is this true, given the age of the earth? Isn't it more likely that Pu-244 is formed from U-238, and its long half-life allows detectable amounts to build up? jimfbleak (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support—Looks excellent. take a space after. Tony   (talk)  15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.