Talk:Unbiunium/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Geojournal (talk · contribs) 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to review this article in a timely fashion. Thank you for the nomination. Geo ^talk 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geojournal: Sorry to bother you if you're busy, but it's been over a month now: are you still planning to conduct this review soon? Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review has not received any comments in two weeks. Additionally, the reviewer has not made any edits anywhere in over a month. I'll be taking over. Parcly Taxel 04:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Problems found and corrected

Heavier elements, beginning with element 121, would likely be too short-lived to be detected with current technology: they would decay within a microsecond, before reaching the detectors; however, the precise location of the one-microsecond border of half-lives is not known and may allow the synthesis of elements 121 through 124, with the exact limit depending on the model chosen for predicting nuclide masses. The sentence feels like it could be split in two.
Perhaps the most plausible way of reaching the centre of the island with current technology is to reach nuclides like ²⁹⁹Uue, ²⁹⁵Ts, and ²⁹⁵Lv whose alpha daughters are near enough to the island to undergo electron capture to add the necessary neutrons; nonetheless, the island is expected to be centred around copernicium, element 112, and thus this would not be of much help synthesising elements beyond 118. Weasel, and also unnecessary because of the "plausible".
The 8p electron of unbiunium is expected to be very loosely bound, so that its predicted ionisation energy of 4.45 eV is actually lower than that of the alkali metal of period 8, ununennium (4.53 eV), and is in fact lower than those of all known elements except for the alkali metals potassium, rubidium, caesium, and francium. Still awkward.
Unbiunium may hence be somewhat like lawrencium in having an anomalous s²p configuration replacing the expected ds² thanks to relativistic effects, but not having that affect its chemistry: the bond dissociation energies, bond lengths, and polarisabilities of the UbuF molecule are expected to continue the trend down group 3. "Thanks"?
- I was reading too much stuff in French and directly translated grâce à. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Now we have only radium left. Parcly Taxel 04:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.