Wikipedia:Peer review/Ununseptium/archive1

Ununseptium

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because R8R Gtrs and I are trying to get it to FA and I wanted some feedback and suggestions for it.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "the element is unlikely to be a halogen" I would change this to "the element is likely going to have significantly different properties from halogens, which form the rest of the group". it is not clear to me if for these heavy elements the halogen/noble gas label will depend on their actual chemistry or their group location. saying one or the other is original research.
• " there are signs that the heavier isotopes may be much more stable." is incredibly vague and confusing.
• island of stability should have a bit more discussion in the pre-discovery section
• 22.2-milligram targe; of what? also, mention the half time of the Bk isotope to point out the time-sensitivity of the experiment; there needs to be a mention that within  ? amount of time ?% of the sample would decompose

  Good one--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• "the Americans" change to the American team at ???
• also, this para should be moved into the next section
• "even if ununseptium turns out to be a halogen" change to even if its chemical properties will be similar to other halogents

  Don't take that. It's an imaginary situation, after all, we can be as brave in imagining as we want--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• ""could take a year."" what exactly could take a year?
• is anybody thinkign about testing the chemistry of the element?

  Sorry--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• what is the predicted 7p1/2 7p3/2 subshell gap?
• redicts the boiling point to be 345 => clarify that it is about E117
• I would point out that isotopes above 112 are going to have an alpha decay half-life of above 1 day
• clarify that the graph is for the alpha-decay
• are there any computations for beta-decays?
  • Beta decay is probably somewhat suppressed for superheavy elements: see Talk:Ununpentium#Stable E115, so I don't think there are very many studies on the beta decay of element 117 isotopes. Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• "unwillingness of ununseptium to form purely sigma or pi bonds" an atom does not have will
• "the charge is on the ununseptium atom" you mean the negative charge?
• "most tightly bound " is confusing. by what metrics?

  I don't get this one. Do you want the source? It is in the ref, and there's no mention of any of such in the article. If you mean something else... I don't get it, tell me--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  "Compund X is tightly bound" sounds like a very weird statement to me. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• the chemistry section could use a bit of trimming, since it is quite technical

  a) Why is it the point? b) What else to write about? c) The size is optimal IMO. If you think so not, go ahead and tell what is excessive here. Every para has its point not just describing, but adding a new detail into the picture.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• point out that Uus is the most recently discovered element

• mention somewhere that Uus is the second-to-last element in the 7th period

Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)