Talk:Moscovium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

overview

Like flerovium this is generally a pretty great article. I have some concerns with the discovery section that I've detailed below, but otherwise I feel that with some relatively minor changes I should be able to pass this article.

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

style/layout

• The lede is less complete here than it was for flerovium, failing to note the JWP comments on the discovery. I also think the way we describe the element's synthetic nature was done in a slightly more straightforward manner w/ flerovium. However these concerns are minor and need only be addressed at your discretion. Overall the lede is perfectly acceptable for a GA.
  • Addressed, I think. Double sharp (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Is there a better graphic for 115's place about the island of instability than this?
  • There are nicer ones, but this is the most up-to-date one I found. It's also created by an expert in the field, which I think is a good enough reason to sacrifice some niceness of the image. Double sharp (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Protonk (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• We wikilink Isotopes of ununtrium twice in the reaction chain (via redirects). Is the intent here that these will be individual article as some point in the (possibly distant) future?
  • Yes. It will probably be a very distant future though. :-P Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

content

• "The Dubna–Livermore collaboration has strengthened their claim for the discovery of ununtrium by conducting chemical experiments on the final decay product Db-268" I'm not sure about the placement of this sentence in concert with the rest of the section. I think we have a relatively straightforward series of claims to make in the article. The first synthesis reported that they produced ununpentium which alpha decayed to ununtrium. Follow-on experiments showed that the final decay product behaved in a chemically expected fashion, though later we mention that Db-268's nuclear characteristics were likewise what we expected. Why were the chemical properties of dubnium believed to be valuable (IUPAC disagreed, as we note)? What prompted the researchers to take this route and what evidence did the first experiment produce to show that ununpentium had been created? I'm curious because we presumably had some model for the decay chain giving us confidence that it would end in dubnium but it's not clear from the article why chemical analysis was used or why the team felt it would be dispositive.
  • The trouble is that ²⁶⁸Db had not been characterized before. In fact, none of the nuclides in the decay chain of ununpentium were known before the first synthesis of ununpentium. This is troublesome because it means that this doesn't confirm anyone's reported decay properties and hence another group has to come in and confirm things. For obvious reasons this can take some time. Hence, I imagine the Dubna team decided to go for chemical experimentation as well to identify the final, amazingly long-lived nucleus (²⁶⁸Db is the heaviest nuclide with a half-life over a day; this could well also have been a factor, but I cannot prove that). (Note; this isn't directly sourced, but they must know the JWP criteria, and chemical experiments would help them to fulfill them where they could not do so for the nuclear properties.) Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Got it. Protonk (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Like the above the last sentence in this section is somewhat unclear. We explain (nicely, in my mind) why IUPAC was skeptical about the chemical evidence but this part "...and the identification of the daughter dubnium isotope was the most important factor in confirming the discovery of ununpentium and ununtrium." doesn't seem to follow. At the very least the conjunction should be "but" unless I'm misreading it.
  • Changed to "but". Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "In experiments in June 2004 and December 2005..." Awkwardly worded
• "Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, ununpentium should be known as eka-bismuth." In the flerovium article we say "Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, flerovium is sometimes called eka-lead." Why the difference?
  • You're right, there shouldn't be a difference. Regularized it in 115 to follow Fl. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "...IUPAC published recommendations according to which the element was to be called ununpentium..." awkwardly worded. How about "In 1979 IUPAC recommended ununpentium (with the corresponding symbol of Uup), a systematic element name as a placeholder..."? I'm not super sold on my alternate wording but it's worth another look
  • Better? Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "The recommendations are largely ignored..." should be "These recommendations..."
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• The last paragraph in naming should probably proceed from the general to the specific. Noting first that the JWP offers naming rights in light of a confirmed discovery, then that the claim had been made by Dubna and found wanting by IUPAC (here folding the first sentence into the sentence that starts with "In 2011...") finally noting the likely re-evaluation in the future.
  • Better? Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "This considerably enhances the chances for the discovery of ununpentium to soon become officially recognized by IUPAC" Could probably be reworded and shortened. That paragraph also starts with "...announced they had repeated the 2004 experiment and that its findings were confirmed." which could be "announced they had repeated the 2004 experiment, confirming Dubna's findings." (depending on how metonymic we'd like to be about the lab)
  • Better? (Generally very metonymic, I think.) Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "...in addition to alpha decaying and also have a long enough half-life of several seconds." What is a "long enough half-life"?
  • I meant a "relatively long half-life"; changed. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "... thus affording the most likely hope of reaching the middle of the island using current technology" "thus" seems unecessary here
  • You're right, and thus (LOL)  Done. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Other possibilities include quasifission (partial fusion followed by fission) of a massive nucleus." Coming on the heels of a sentence like "Possible drawbacks are..." leads me to believe this is also a drawback. Looking ahead it appears that this isn't a drawback but is instead (like multi-nuclei transfer reactions) is another path to synthesis. Maybe we can break out the later sentences into a new paragraph to make clear that we're talking about distinct paths forward and address the means and concerns distinctly. Otherwise it becomes tough for the reader to keep things straight.
  • Split the later sentences into a new paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "...at velocities comparable to the speed of light, which is where the differences arise." I think I missed this in the flerovium review, but that's sort of an odd sentence. It's not bad (especially if the reader peruses the spin-orbit interaction article) but it's sort of unclear. I think we're trying to say that the spin orbit effect is more pronounced at relativistic speeds but "where the differences arise" isn't getting us that.
  • Removed that clause – I think it's clearer without it. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "However, the Uup3+ cation would portray eka-bismuth properties." What does this mean? I'm assuming it's explained in the next sentence but I'm not 100% sure (and that assumption is mostly driven by noting that they're sourced to the same cite)
  • It means that it should behave like Bi³⁺, which is its lighter homologue. Changed it in the article to make it clearer. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Why are the characteristics of Bismuth and Polonium hydrides important here? The linked paper notes (in a section title) that they're models for the behavior of 115 and 116 but it's not immediately apparent in the article that this is why we discuss it. Rather the phrasing of "However, the targets included lead and bismuth impurities and hence some isotopes of bismuth and polonium..." makes it seem like these are shortcomings in those experiments. I may be misreading one or the other, but it isn't clear to me.
  • It was a shortcoming (the production of Bi and Po was not planned for), but it gave useful information about how their heavier homologs 115 and Lv ought to behave. Better? Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm forcing you to give me a physics lesson on the cheap here. :) Protonk (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's perfectly fine. Your points are really good and make me take a close look at what I've written, only to find that I did not mean what I literally said. Got to improve on that still, I think. :-) Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)