Talk:Island of stability/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 05:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Thanks for taking this up. ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General

Overall, I think this is a very well-written article. The intro does well explaining the origin of the island, and the rest of the section flows nicely, and reasonably accessible to me despite the difficult topic. It is well-researched, broad enough without unnecessary details, and properly referenced with inline citation. No copyvio or neutrality problem found. It's illustrated with media, including pictures and tables when necessary. Images have proper copyright tags.

Specific

I do have some feedback below. They're mostly related to ideas about how to make the text more presentable to wider (non-specialist audience). Feel free to disagree but please explain the reason if you do so.

"the predicted closed shell at N = 184": what do you think about adding saying "neutron number (N) = 184", "with 184 neutrons" or other such wording? To make the lead more understandable for lay person

Done RockMagnetist(talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the first mention of Z (atomic number)

Done RockMagnetist(talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" heavier doubly magic nuclei." Can we use clearer wording, e.g. "with a magic number of both protons and neutrons" or something similar?

Done I presume you mean the first instance in the lead. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As the number of neutrons moves away from the stable region, the half-lives decrease rapidly, and the last element in the periodic table that has a stable isotope is lead": What does lead to do with the number of neutrons moving away from the stable region? Isn't it the number of protons that's related to what element it is?
- Can you add a ref for this statement?

Done I added a ref to a nuclear chart that depicts these trends, and rewrote the sentence to indicate that the valley of stability extends to lead whereas nuclei that are neutron-rich, neutron-poor, or too heavy become less stable farther from the valley of stability. The bit about neutron number is explained further at the beginning of the third paragraph. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Thanks for your explanation. The new versions seems fine but I suggest replacing "there is a lopsided neutron-proton ratio" with something like "when they are too neutron-rich or neutron-poor". The problem with "lopsided ratio" is that, as per the 3rd paragraph, the ratio is supposed to be lopsided for larger elements because neutrons are needed to counterbalance repulsion. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it still should say lopsided, though I added a sentence clarifying that it refers specifically to neutron-rich or neutron-rich nuclei. ComplexRational (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The stability of a nucleus is determined by its binding energy." For clarity, can you specify whether they are positively correlated or negatively correlated?.

Done Positively correlated. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The binding energy per nucleon increases with atomic number to a broad plateau around A = 60, then declines. If a nucleus can be split into two parts that have a lower total energy, it is unstable." From the second sentence I get the impression that lower binding energy is more stable. But if binding energy declines after A =60 (per the first sentence), wouldn't it follow that the elements would get more stable after A=60? Why is it the opposite?

Done Clarified that low total energy is a consequence of mass defect (i.e. mass (and thus energy) lost due to tighter binding resulting from higher binding energy). Is this clear enough? ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this (plus the clarification in the first sentence of the paragraph) really helps for me. HaEr48 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In the late 1960s, more sophisticated shell models by William Myers and Władysław Świątecki,": Are there wikilinks for these new models or scientists? For readers interested to know more

Not done These authors only have a brief mention in Bemis & Nix, 1977, and they do not have their own pages (if you try linking, you will find unrelated people; I made a short comment on this). ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" setting upper limits to the abundance": can you clarify what this means? How can "upper limits" be set due to unsuccessful searches?

Done Rewritten so that it is hopefully clearer. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"new superheavy elements were being discovered every few years": can you include where the discovered copernicium and rutherfordium are located w.r.t the hypothesized island of stability?

Done The purpose of this statement was to describe a sequence of intermediate discoveries culminating in the identification of flerovium in 1998. If you still believe it is irrelevant to the topic, I can rewrite it or remove it entirely. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even Z alpha decay chains.svg: It took me a while to figure out that N-Z is the 'neutron excess' talked about in the caption, and I still can't figure out what "Col. Nr." means. I suggest adding some explanations in the caption or in the picture itself (even if just a short info inside parentheses)

Done Added description in parentheses. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seabogrium: typo

Done RockMagnetist(talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused whether the "deformed nuclei" section apply or how. The deformed nuclei section revises the magic numbers to be located around Z = 106–108 and N ≈ 160–164 and Hassium-270 is one such isotope. But the rest of the text seem to ignore this, e.g. the "Predicted decay properties" section still use N=184 as magic number and says that no nuclide on the island have been observed (so does Hassium-270 not count?). Pretty sure it's a misunderstanding on my part, please clarify the text to prevent this misunderstanding.

Done I added a few sentences to explain that this is a "peninsula" of stability but not the center of the actual island - hopefully the connection is clearer now. ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. HaEr48 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superheavy decay modes predicted.png: (1) The meaning of "SF" and "EC" is not explained in the caption (2) What do the small white and black squares in the graph mean? If possible please clarify in caption.

Done The caption should now explain everything. ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do "xn channels" mean "pxn and αxn"? Or do they mean something else? Please clarify.

Done ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wikilink mendelevium? Probably mention the atomic number as well

Done ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"It may also be possible to generate isotopes in the island of stability such as ²⁹⁸Fl in multi-nucleon transfer reactions" Is ²⁹⁸Fl mentioned in the source? I tried to cross-check it but couldn't find the reference

Done You are correct; I added a new source in which ²⁹⁸Fl is specifically referenced. ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add wikilinks to non-obvious technical terms? e.g. quantum tunneling

Done what I could find. ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- HaEr48 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Thank you ComplexRational and RockMagnetist for the responses. I hope my review has been useful in improving the article. I'm ready now to pass it as GA, but I still have one small suggestion (see blue text above), please take a look as a follow up. HaEr48 (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Thank you for your review. It was indeed helpful. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: And thank you for your review; it is indeed important to be mindful of clarity, especially to the general audience. ComplexRational (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]