Wikipedia:Peer review/List of elements by stability of isotopes/archive1

List of elements by stability of isotopes

This peer review discussion has been closed.

from before the move

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've been working on this list for some time and I was wondering what is still missing for it to become a fetured list?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: If the title of a list is "List of elements by nuclear stability", shouldn't the default sorting option for the first list be descending by number of stable isotopes? Also, the second list should have the most stable isotope column before the half-life column. The way they are ordered now implies that the half-life refers to the element itself, not the individual isotope. I don't know anything about sorted lists, so I won't mess with it :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the first part I am not sure that would necessarly work either: there are multiple variables on which stablity depends on and number of stable isotopes is in some aspects a coincidence of several factors. For example, iron-56 is about the most stable you can get yet iron has only 3 stable isotopes. After iron, you get more stable isotopes per element, but not necessarly more nuclear stability. I am open to suggestions for the name of the article if you think there would be a less 'misleading name.' Nergaal (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How about List of elements by stability of isotopes ? That leaves room for both elements with stable isotopes and those without. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that works better and is precise enough. I will move it after the review is closed (weren't there some problems if the move was done during a review or candidate process?). Nergaal (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it screws things up or not, it's good to be precautious. Henceforth, I will review the article as though it were named List of elements by stability of isotopes, but we will wait until this process is over to change the name. Please allow me a few days to get started, as I am currently PRing Restoration of the Everglades. Once that's done, we'll get this list up to snuff. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article and this page got screwed up :( Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

after

• "The first part of the list contain 80 of the first 82 elements in the periodic table" This statement implies that within the first 82 elements, there are two that are unstable. However, it isn't explained to the reader until the diagram that these are technetium and promethium. This information should all be available in one place.
• Now that the title is stability of isotopes, can you make Number of Stable Isotopes the default sort for the first table? Not only will this improve the usefulness of the table, it will remove the need for the following hard-to-read statement:
  • "Of these 80 elements one (tin) has 10 stable isotopes, one (xenon) has 9, five have 7, three have 6, nine have 5, eight have 4, 11 have 3, 15 have 2, and 27 of them have a single stable isotope."

More to come later. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to see that you're adding references. Consider separating the footnotes and the citations into two separate sections, as in List of New York Jets head coaches.
• I don't know that "Most common isotope on earth" is really relevant to this list. I would much rather see columns displaying the element's longest-lived unstable isotope and its half-life. This would allow the user to compare data between the two tables, which would make the entire list more useful.

What would add the longest lived unstable isotope? It is possible that some of the isotopes listead as stable to have actual half-lives of 10^30, which would make that column at least confusing. Nergaal (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that if an element is listed as having 5 stable isotopes, take the 6th most stable, call it unstable, and put it in a new column.

................ Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• It was only after my third time looking through the list that I noticed the color code at the bottom of the page. Seeing as it is quite probable that some users will only read the first table, the color code should either be listed in the TOC or it should come before the two tables.
• The first row of the second table is extremely ugly when you try to squeeze the time abbreviations in there. Also, I'm fairly certain that a is the symbol for year, not y.

That is the techincal one used in books, but is it necessary to have it here too?

It is the symbol used in each individual list of isotopes (see Isotopes of zirconium), and we should strive for consistency among lists.

• In regards to Image:Periodic Table by Number of Stable Isotopes.PNG:
  • No, you did not create this image entirely by yourself. It is a modified version of Image:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG, which I created. I have no problem with having my images reused so long as they are properly attributed.
  • The "7" in the key should say "7+", as it is used for Sn and Xe.
  • The cavities in the letters need to be corrected. It is quite evident that Ti, Cr, Cu, Ge, La, and Hf were all partially recolored.
• In regards to Image:Periodic Table by Radioactivity.PNG:
  • As with the previous image, attribution would be greatly appreciated.
  • Color correction needed for La, Ac, Ds, 114 through 116. It also appears that part of "Rhenium" was erased.
  • The colors used in the caption should closely resemble those used in the image. The blues, the greens, and the browns do not match. The brown used in the picture makes it almost unreadable. I suggest replacing it with the color used in the caption.

About the tables: I made them in a hurry, as a 1st version. I wanted to see how do they look, and I got bored to do every little spot. If you were the original cereator of the file, do you still have that one? Right now it is really tedious to modify the file. Nergaal (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a few colored versions, but I don't have the original white template, if that's what you mean.

Any idea how to modify the attribution? Just edit the summary? Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What you've done with it now is totally fine. :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Until now I still ahve to do the images, and possibly add the extra column to the first table. Anything else? Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC):

I did a fairly substantial touchup of the first image, so that's out of the way.--Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that you got all of the data from Sonzogni's interactive chart. However, this is only cited in the third paragraph, which deals with the second table. Does the chart only cover the unstable isotopes, or should it also be cited for the first table?

First table is taken from the wiki articles themselves. Since it is not an issue of half-times, I did not try to find refs for # of stable isotopes. I assumed that the isotopes pages are not vandalized to the level of swotching which isotope is stable and which is not. I got a ref for the half-time since the articles on isotopes are not well referrenced at all, and for the last part of the table, there is a need for some refs.

While they're not listed among the criteria, verifiability and reliability are mentioned in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. You could take a look at List of New York Jets head coaches for ideas on how to implement citations.

Footnotes

• "Most common isotope on Earth does not necessarly imply that the isotope is the lowest in energy, but that its formation was more favored in the region of our Solar System. For example, the unstable isotope cadmium-114 is more abundant than any stable isotope, fact allowed by a half-life several orders of magnitude above that of the age of the Solar System"
  • Which region of our Solar System?
  • It isn't very clear what you're trying to illustrate with the cadmium-114 example.
  • There's some sort of connecting word missing after the second comma.
• In notes "c" and "e", the language used in regard to the periodic table may confuse unfamiliar readers. "Past" may imply "between californium and lawrencium". "After" may imply "discovered after roentgenium".

Isotope links

I've evaluated all of the blue links to specific isotopes. The overwhelming majority of them are simply redirects to either "Isotopes of (element)", the element itself, or in the case of hydrogen-1, to hydrogen atom. The following is a list of all the isotope blue links which actually lead to distinct articles in the order in which they appear in the tables:

• iron-56
• helium-4
• carbon-12
• nitrogen-14
• bismuth-209
• thorium-232
• uranium-238
• plutonium-244
• americium-243

Clearly, the original idea of simply wikilinking every mentioned isotope is not effective. My thoughts on possible solutions include:

• Removing all wikilinks other than those which lead to distinct articles
• Providing a small symbol (such as an asterisk) next to each isotope which will link to that element's respective list of isotopes: element-###[[Isotopes of element|*]]
• Changing links from [[element-###]] to [[Isotopes of element|element]]-### except for isotopes with distinct articles

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But what if the links change, and somebody actually gets an article say for Pb-208? Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see a list with a little more thought put into it than to simply have every isotope linked than see a list which caters to the highly unlikely situation in which out of the hundreds of known isotopes, one from this list is chosen to become an article that actually provides unique information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the last choice but why is it better that what is now? Nergaal (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking the entire phrase implies that each link will lead to a specific isotope article, which is rarely true. Users clicking on the links might start to think that there aren't any distinct isotope articles. If we're more selective about which items we link, it becomes clearer to the user where the links actually go. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be better. I am not sure about the second table though. Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• "Element 43 (technetium), element 61 (promethium)..." I have yet to see elements presented in this format. Consider changing to "Technetium, promethium, (atomic numbers 43 and 61, respectively)" or something to that effect. In any case, it is visually awkward to link the entire phrase. I would rather see just (technetium) and (promethium) linked.
• "On the other hand" is not very scientific or encyclopedic. Consider changing to "However".
• "it is possible that some isotopes that are presently considered stable will be revealed to decay with extremely long half-times (...)" Consider following this sentence by explaining that the tables reflect the current consensus of the scientific community, possibly with an "as of" statement.
• "the number of the stable isotopes" Very awkward. I would remove the second "the".
• "It should be noted that many of these elements also have isotopes with very long half-lives that have not been included in the list" To a reader who is unfamiliar with the ambiguities of isotope stability, this statement may seem redundant. Perhaps it would be better to include an explanation that in some journals, isotopes with extremely long half-lives are listed as being essentially stable.
• "All the other 37 known elements do have only radioactive isotopes." Awkward wording. How about "The other 37 discovered elements have isotopes which are all known to be radioactive." ?
• "Nevertheless, some of these have isotopes with very long half-lives, which allows them to still be present on Earth (e.g.: bismuth, uranium, thorium, etc.)." This statement seems unnecessary, as it's never explained why radioactivity would preclude an element from existing on earth.
• "Only 13 have a half-time of at least 100 years. The other 24 are probably too radioactive and unstable to be used outside academic research."
  • "Probably" should be avoided unless you can find a good reference to back it up.
  • Having a short half-life and being useful outside academic research aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, are they? If a good source says that, then provide one.

    Why wouldn't they? What I know from the radon example that .2 decays per second per liter are above the recommended levels and that is probably a health hazard. Do you have a counter-example? Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't have a counterexample, no. The point I'm trying to make is that the comparison will make more sense to the reader if both sentences include something about half-lives or something about use outside academia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gone through all the suggestions. I still need to finish with all the small brushes of wrong color in the second picture. Also, do you have an idea for the legend of the second picture? If I use the colors from the table, then the writing will be unreadable. Nergaal (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use the colors from the legend as the colors for the table? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously I don't know/don't have the patience to find out how to put the color from the text into the image.Nergaal (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hee, I did it for you. The colors in the new version are exact matches for the colors used in the caption. It may look a bit off, but I think that's because the image is on a white background whereas the caption is on a gray background. Anywho, feel free to mix and match as you please. Once you're satisfied with a color scheme, leave me a message and I'll touch up the image. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and nominate it for FLC. I will fix the remaining comments during the nomination. Nergaal (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing/archiving the review? Nergaal (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nice work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)