Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of elements by stability of isotopes


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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:42, 6 July 2008.

List of elements by stability of isotopes
I have worked on this list for some time and I think it should be close to completion now. It has also gone through a comprehensive review recently and thanks to Cryptic C62, lots of feedback was received. Nergaal (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose  (Now support): A solid list, but some issues.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So are your issues resolved? Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I got no issues on seeing that list with an FL star. Minor detail, your footnotes are a,b,c,d,e,f,h,h,i. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with this lost so I support--Dem393 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the list of stable elements, footnote (b) states that the most common isotope may not be the most stable one. In addition to or instead of placing this footnote in the table header, I suggest placing it at all isotopes that are most common yet unstable. --Eddi (Talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I went for a different approach. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is an improvement, yes. I would be happy, though, to see the relevant unstable isotopes listed in their order among the stable ones, to illustrate that abundancy does not necessarily imply stability.  E.g. for calcium: 40calcium, 44calcium, 42calcium,  [ 48calcium ] , 43calcium.  Could this be useful? --Eddi (Talk) 10:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the article is not about the isotopes found on Earth, but about the ones that are stable. Nergaal (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but when I read that some unstable isotopes are more abundant than some stable ones, I'm curious to see which ones those are. Perhaps it is not very interesting if the abundancy is low (like with calcium), but don't you think it could be interesting if the unstable isotopes were among, say, the top 1-2(-3) in abundancy? --Eddi (Talk) 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the article/list now?Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The table of elements with stable isotopes looks very nice, I think. Good work – hope the level of this fits with the rest.  Please note that I have not studied the whole article in detail, and I have not considered the FL criteria.  By the way, remember units (i.e. years) of the half-lives mentioned in footnotes. --Eddi (Talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "In this list, the chemical elements are listed in terms of the nuclear stability of their most stable isotopes." Wow - that's a bit of an unengaging and in-yer-face opening statement for me. Can it begin by saying what a stable isotope is or something? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about now? Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works. Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support—but can you space the equals signs on both sides, as per MOS? TONY   (talk)  08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.