![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article currently reads: 'Astatine fits the trend well, being a black solid.[8]'
Unfortunately, this is not so. Reference [8] is erroneous. Macroscopic (visible) quantities of astatine have not yet been prepared. Neither has there been, to my knowledge, any theoretical study in the literature as to the predicted colour of astatine. Sandbh ( talk) 10:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This subsection currently says: "It [AtH/HAt] is easily oxidized: upon the addition of nitric acid (in which astatine is said to exist as At(0) or At+) and silver(I), astatine precipitates only partially as silver(I) astatide (AgAt), or not at all. Iodine, in contrast, precipitates readily as silver(I) iodide." Allens ( talk) then asked, "Why does not precipitating well indicate being easily oxidized?"
The relevant extract from Wiberg 2001 (p. 423) is: 'Because hydrogen astatide is readily oxidized, the astatide ion can only be partially precipitated as AgAt after acidification with nitric acid (oxidation) and addition of Ag+ ions.' As I understand it, astatine does not precipiate well as AgAt since upon being acidified by nitric acid any or most astatide (At–) ions, which might otherwise be available, are oxidized to At(0) or At+. Whereas, iodine, for example, would still be present in the form of dilute hydroiodic acid (H+I–). This is on the basis that the hydrogen halides become less easy to oxidize with reducing atomic number. Hence not precipating well is associated with easy oxidizability. Sandbh ( talk) 13:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to have (free) access to the following and could post any listing of electronegativities or similar information that it gives?
It is where the book:
is getting its info on Astatine's electronegativity. I'm wondering for the following two reasons:
Thanks! Allens ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Then I only have to clear why there IS an "uncertainty level" 0.06 D falls into, and I'm done with questions here-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
What about AtI−
2? Or does "interhalogen" not count ions?
Allens (
talk |
contribs)
04:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
(We should probably move this discussion to the Talk:Interhalogen page.) The difficulty comes from the scarcity (at least in Google Books) of modern info on IBr5. It used to be used vs diptheria, so there's lots of stuff from 1909 and before on it. Of the two modern references, one just says "crystalline solid" and one (on wastes) says "colorless crystals", unstable on heating, very toxic, and that it's a byproduct of some syntheses. The one from 1909 goes into much, much more detail, including synthesis, it giving off bromine vapors if heated sufficiently, etc. That one also claims that it's liquid at anything above 4C, which may be a matter of the presence of iodine, bromine, and/or water. Except... normally crystallization drives out impurities, right? Allens ( talk | contribs) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we need the subheaders? I wrotetried to write a solid text for each section, small enough to go without subheaders and large enough to have the contents and the composition. The subsections are 1 para long, some terribly short alone (but were fine with the others); the section in whole isn't too long. I just thought that someone who would be to read the article wouldn't look for specifically At-O compounds...why the subheaders? (I didn't even like the Char subheaders, don't feel the need)--
R8R Gtrs (
talk)
17:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Some of the recent literature about this is erroneous. Barysz (2010, p. 79) says that this state has not been verified and that earlier claims for AtO4– had also not been verified. She cites a 1964 reference. Atkins et al. (2010, p. 421) say the same thing: 'No evidence for At(VIII) has yet been obtained'.
Gmelin (1985, pp. 112, 192–193), however, notes that the formation of the perastatate ion (AtO4–) was reported in 1970 and that its synthesis was replicated and confirmed with new evidence in 1978. Greenwood and Earnshaw (2002, p. 886) write that, 'The perastatate ion, AtO4–, was first conclusively prepared by VA Khalkin's group in the USSR 1970 using solid XeF2 in hot NaOH solution at ph ~10.'
This talk page is getting rather long, partially with material that's quite old. I've recently set up archiving for Talk:Joan Pujol Garcia, and propose setting it up for this page. I suggest any thread not touched in 30+ days should be archived, plus a maximum 50,000 bytes on the talk page. (Would people prefer the archive box collapsed or not? It's collapsed on the Talk:Joan Pujol Garcia page, if you want to take a look.) Allens ( talk | contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
As the subject says, I'm declaring my "official"/GOCE copyediting done for now. I'll keep an eye on the article (like copyediting any responses to my clarification requests) and will be back to help out when the FA discussion begins. Allens ( talk | contribs) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The following (in a note linked off of "The lower oxidation states are a common starting point for astatine–oxygen bonds") is completely unclear regarding +1 oxidation states with oxygen: "This starting with lower oxidation states, however, does not mean that there are no halogen-based astatine complexes in an oxidation state above +1, as well as that there is no oxygen-based astatine species in the oxidation state of +1." Are there, or aren't there, oxygen-based astatine chemical species with a +1 oxidation state? There's a double negative with "does not mean" and "there is no". And what's the relationship between this and starting with lower oxidation states in compounds with oxygen? And, moreover, saying that astatine-oxygen bonds usually begin with lower oxidation states (lower as in not above +1?) doesn't seem to have any particular relationship with whether or not there are "halogen-based astatine complexes in an oxidation state above +1". Once I know these things, I can rewrite it to be clear(er). Thanks! Allens ( talk | contribs) 11:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In 1945 and earlier, the research university of the
University of California was the one in Berkeley, and hence saying anything more than
University of California is redundant, misleading, and historically anachronistic.
The only other possible campus of the University of California was its southern division in
Los Angeles, which was a teaching institution, and not a research univerisity.
These campuses of the University of California did not exist back then:
The ones in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Riverside, Irvine, San Diego (or La Jolla), Modesto, or Davis. The
University of California at San Francisco might have existed, but it wasn't called that. The
University of California at Los Angeles might have existed, but it was not a high-level research institution like the one in Berkeley was.
The one in San Francisco was just the medical school, dental school, nursing school, and pharmacy school of the campus in Berkeley.
Also note that its official name has been the
University of California at Berkley since sometime in the '70s or '80s.
09:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.67.106.59 (
talk)
I just read an article on the Phys.Org website that may contain some useful information or sources that could be added to this Wikipedia article. 66.18.219.221 ( talk) 16:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how to interpret this chart of decay products.
Are the times indicated there half-lives? If so, why does Francium have 5 min? The longest half-life I know about is about 20 seconds. Jokem ( talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Following the progression of coloration, the color of Astatine would be darker than black; this points to an explanation of radioactivity as the natural consequence of consistency constraints in the fabric of the universe, where radioactive elements become radioactive by virtue of it being impossible to display the expected physical property because it makes no sense physically speaking. - djb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.44.153 ( talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
|title=
causes this, but I still don't know how to fix it properly.--
R8R (
talk)
13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Here are the issues with ref formatting for this version of the article:
Simple stuff, and needs to be checked and corrected reference by reference. Sandbh ( talk) 10:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried to resolve the problems in comments. I've deleted those last sentences because I don't really understand where they come from, I can't find them in the book in the section I cite. Please check if they are resolved. (My poor English back then; not that it's perfect now, but it has improved since then, I think. Some of the words in question, however, are given in technical dictionaries, but I think I found better ones.)-- R8R ( talk) 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you have that Soviet book in English; that's great. But it will raise a reference checker's eyebrow, since we heavily use the original version in Russian. The best way to fix this would be to change all those citations to the English version (this is English Wiki, after all), which could be done in a number of ways. Either you fix it, or you can send the book to me (if it's digital), and I/we could do it. I can get to it tomorrow, or on Saturday, or on Sunday, etc., i.e. I finally do have the time (actually not yet, but since tomorrow). I think this little thing is the only thing that separates us from the FAC, not this time until I can get back, not article quality, not anything. Just this little thing :) -- R8R ( talk) 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Those citations were meant to represent refs that don't even mention those are found in nature. (I was not sure how to do it and if that should be done.) I think we should reformat this rather than delete it.-- R8R ( talk) 09:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We can fix this by saying 214 and 215 are sometimes not listed due to discrepancies (and errors) in the literature as to the number of naturally occurring isotopes of astatine e.g. some that say, as late as 1989 (Wilson, Stevie, Magee) astatine has no naturally occurring isotopes. Even Wiberg does not list 214. Sandbh ( talk) 21:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I think everything is fine. I've done a close look at the details just to make sure it's fine (and check term linking), and, after having looked at it one more time, I'm sure it is. These are very minor, they won't delay the FAC. Okay, maybe there are those last two, but they won't take too long. As always, all questions regarding grammar are just questions; the article's prose has been looked at closely, I don't really question it.
I have looked for problems, I found what I think might need revising, and then will try to fix those I can (all of them except grammar). I finally have spare time, I think, so maybe tomorrow.
Zalutsky and Pruszynski (2011) say: "The maximum level of 211At that was produced was 6.6 GBq…which to the best of our knowledge, is the highest level of 211At that has been produced to date."
From here, for a given mass X (in grams) of an isotope with atomic mass Y (in g/mol) and a half-life of Z (in s), the amount of radioactivity can be calculated using:
where A = Avogadro's constant, or 6.02214129(27) × 1023
This can be rearranged to give:
For 6.6 gigabequerels of At-211 (atomic mass = 211; half-life = 7.21 hours = 25956 s) this looks like:
Sandbh ( talk) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Pre-FAC I made a mental note to revisit this section to see if it could be improved, as it didn't flow as well as the rest of the article, especially the chemical routes content. This was originally hidden from the article but restored as we couldn't work out why it had been hidden.
The section concerned was largely based on Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov, originally published in 1966, and in a 1970 English translation. Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov are an interesting read but sometimes hard to follow. I don't know if this is an outcome of the way they wrote the original Russian text (in part they seem to assume a lot of pre-knowledge or write indirectly and leave it the reader to work out the implications) or the translation, or both.
After reading Zalutsky and Pruszynski (2011), and some other later references (Gmelin 1986; Larsen, Wieland and Zalutsky 1996; Lindegren, Bäck and Jensen 2001; and two from 2001 and 2014 that didn't make it into the final mix) I concluded that this section could be improved. So I did some restructuring, editing and citation renovating, to sharpen focus, clarity, flow, and currency. This section reads better now IMO. Sandbh ( talk) 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Density can be derived from the mass of the unit cell divided by its volume. If condensed astatine has an FCC structure then a diagonal face of the unit cell will be 4R long where R = atomic radius. The edge of the unit cell will then be equal to the square root of 0.5*(4R*4R). The predicted covalent radius of At is 1.5 angstrom. For the two FCC metals in the p-block, Al and Pb, covalent radii are 1.21 and 1.46 and the metallic radii are 1.43 and 1.75. The ratios of metallic: covalent radii are 1.18 and 1.20, respectively. Presuming the lead ratio also holds for At (predicted covalent radius = 1.5 angstrom) that yields a metallic radius for the latter of 1.8 angstrom. The edge of the unit cell will then be 5.09 angstrom, giving a unit cell volume of 131.87 cubic angstroms. There are 4 atoms in an FCC unit cell. So the weight of the cell would be 4*210 (i.e. the atomic weight of At) divided by Avogadro's number i.e. 6.0221412*10^23 = 139.48 x 10^(–23) grams. That gives a density of 10.57 grams per cubic centimetre. How does that look? ( I'm not proposing to use this in the article). Sandbh ( talk) 12:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I copy edited the lead to remove inaccuracies, tighten the text, and make it follow the main body of the article more closely.
Re: "Accordingly, it is so rare in nature it can be considered virtually non-existent". I read the cited reference (Anders 1959) but wasn't able to find any support for this assertion.
Re: "the high cost of doing this" i.e. producing astatine. I removed this as an unsupported assertion. The cost of producing astatine is modest and is no more than that of iodine-123, which is widely available. Sandbh ( talk) 05:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"Elemental astatine has never been viewed because a mass large enough to be seen by the naked eye would be immediately vaporized by its radioactive heating."
Which I suspect would be a really dumb thing to do with the naked (i.e., unprotected) eye from close range, at least if you wanted to keep said eye intact. Perhaps the text should be clarified as "unaided eye", just in case the "sufficient cooling" becomes possible in the future and someone is taking a close look when the cooling system fails and everything goes boom (or flash as it happens; since this hasn't actually happened nobody knows (and I suspect no one wants to know)) and says afterward that well, Wikipedia said it was OK to look at with the naked eye under those circumstances. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Link. Double sharp ( talk) 13:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Link. (Would've posted it to the WP Elements links page, but since this wouldn't be very useful outside the At article...) Double sharp ( talk) 04:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The time has come, and this is the first A-class review for our WikiProject. I believe the article suits A1-A4 well, and I don't know what could be done to suit A5. I wish to push it to FAC later, and first undergo this. This article, in some places, is done like the FAC of francium. Any suggestions and opinions are surely welcome.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 09:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article, and it is the first article I will be reviewing as an official member of WP:ELEM.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Other than these three points, seems good
Other than this one point, seems good
Other than these, seems good
Many printed and online sources say that the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust is "probably less than one ounce" or "about one ounce" or the equivalent in metric units ("about 25 grams"). However, no derivation is shown by these sources. Perhaps the originator of this estimate applied the crustal abundance calculation to the whole mass of the Earth, including the core and mantle, which would yield a total of 24 grams in the entire Earth. However, that would still be a questionable figure because the abundance of ancestor isotopes in the whole mass of the Earth is probably quite different from that of the crust.
The book Holleman-Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry correctly gives a figure of "3·10-24 % by weight" (3 x 10-26) as the crustal abundance and "no more than 45 milligrams" (0.045 gram) as the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust. A detailed calculation is available at http://ataridogdaze.com/science/As-Earth-crust.html
Gwc100 ( talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Other than these two points, all is good
This whole section seems good for a GA. It probably would not be OK for a FA, but for a GA it is fine.
Nothing wrong here, probably could get past even an FA review.
All statements backed up at some point in main body.
As soon as the chemical reactivity and compounds section is fixed, this should pass the GA review! Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The article says "Carbon tetraastatide has been synthesized", but this seems dubious and I can't verify it. According the Chemical Abstracts, there is only one scientific paper mentioning carbon tetraastatide (Journal of Computational Chemistry (1998), 19(13), 1526-1533) but it is just a computational paper. I don't have access to the book by Emsley used as a reference for this statement, so I can't see exactly what is said there. Can someone find what is said there so we can evaluate it? ChemNerd ( talk) 13:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
As the phase at STP is only theorized, I think we should put (predicted) next to the indication of it being solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheÆtherPlayer ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This (September 2017) is interesting, combined with what it could mean for studies of Nh and Ts. Double sharp ( talk) 03:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Astaine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Asstatine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Page 33. Double sharp ( talk) 13:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Astateen. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Astateen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Astitene. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Astitene until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Is "bombarding" really a scientific term that can be used at the end of the article, right at the end of the lead, before the subsections? FikaMedHasse ( talk) 10:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I just found the phrase a bit comical. FikaMedHasse ( talk) 11:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article currently reads: 'Astatine fits the trend well, being a black solid.[8]'
Unfortunately, this is not so. Reference [8] is erroneous. Macroscopic (visible) quantities of astatine have not yet been prepared. Neither has there been, to my knowledge, any theoretical study in the literature as to the predicted colour of astatine. Sandbh ( talk) 10:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This subsection currently says: "It [AtH/HAt] is easily oxidized: upon the addition of nitric acid (in which astatine is said to exist as At(0) or At+) and silver(I), astatine precipitates only partially as silver(I) astatide (AgAt), or not at all. Iodine, in contrast, precipitates readily as silver(I) iodide." Allens ( talk) then asked, "Why does not precipitating well indicate being easily oxidized?"
The relevant extract from Wiberg 2001 (p. 423) is: 'Because hydrogen astatide is readily oxidized, the astatide ion can only be partially precipitated as AgAt after acidification with nitric acid (oxidation) and addition of Ag+ ions.' As I understand it, astatine does not precipiate well as AgAt since upon being acidified by nitric acid any or most astatide (At–) ions, which might otherwise be available, are oxidized to At(0) or At+. Whereas, iodine, for example, would still be present in the form of dilute hydroiodic acid (H+I–). This is on the basis that the hydrogen halides become less easy to oxidize with reducing atomic number. Hence not precipating well is associated with easy oxidizability. Sandbh ( talk) 13:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to have (free) access to the following and could post any listing of electronegativities or similar information that it gives?
It is where the book:
is getting its info on Astatine's electronegativity. I'm wondering for the following two reasons:
Thanks! Allens ( talk | contribs) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Then I only have to clear why there IS an "uncertainty level" 0.06 D falls into, and I'm done with questions here-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
What about AtI−
2? Or does "interhalogen" not count ions?
Allens (
talk |
contribs)
04:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
(We should probably move this discussion to the Talk:Interhalogen page.) The difficulty comes from the scarcity (at least in Google Books) of modern info on IBr5. It used to be used vs diptheria, so there's lots of stuff from 1909 and before on it. Of the two modern references, one just says "crystalline solid" and one (on wastes) says "colorless crystals", unstable on heating, very toxic, and that it's a byproduct of some syntheses. The one from 1909 goes into much, much more detail, including synthesis, it giving off bromine vapors if heated sufficiently, etc. That one also claims that it's liquid at anything above 4C, which may be a matter of the presence of iodine, bromine, and/or water. Except... normally crystallization drives out impurities, right? Allens ( talk | contribs) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we need the subheaders? I wrotetried to write a solid text for each section, small enough to go without subheaders and large enough to have the contents and the composition. The subsections are 1 para long, some terribly short alone (but were fine with the others); the section in whole isn't too long. I just thought that someone who would be to read the article wouldn't look for specifically At-O compounds...why the subheaders? (I didn't even like the Char subheaders, don't feel the need)--
R8R Gtrs (
talk)
17:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Some of the recent literature about this is erroneous. Barysz (2010, p. 79) says that this state has not been verified and that earlier claims for AtO4– had also not been verified. She cites a 1964 reference. Atkins et al. (2010, p. 421) say the same thing: 'No evidence for At(VIII) has yet been obtained'.
Gmelin (1985, pp. 112, 192–193), however, notes that the formation of the perastatate ion (AtO4–) was reported in 1970 and that its synthesis was replicated and confirmed with new evidence in 1978. Greenwood and Earnshaw (2002, p. 886) write that, 'The perastatate ion, AtO4–, was first conclusively prepared by VA Khalkin's group in the USSR 1970 using solid XeF2 in hot NaOH solution at ph ~10.'
This talk page is getting rather long, partially with material that's quite old. I've recently set up archiving for Talk:Joan Pujol Garcia, and propose setting it up for this page. I suggest any thread not touched in 30+ days should be archived, plus a maximum 50,000 bytes on the talk page. (Would people prefer the archive box collapsed or not? It's collapsed on the Talk:Joan Pujol Garcia page, if you want to take a look.) Allens ( talk | contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
As the subject says, I'm declaring my "official"/GOCE copyediting done for now. I'll keep an eye on the article (like copyediting any responses to my clarification requests) and will be back to help out when the FA discussion begins. Allens ( talk | contribs) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The following (in a note linked off of "The lower oxidation states are a common starting point for astatine–oxygen bonds") is completely unclear regarding +1 oxidation states with oxygen: "This starting with lower oxidation states, however, does not mean that there are no halogen-based astatine complexes in an oxidation state above +1, as well as that there is no oxygen-based astatine species in the oxidation state of +1." Are there, or aren't there, oxygen-based astatine chemical species with a +1 oxidation state? There's a double negative with "does not mean" and "there is no". And what's the relationship between this and starting with lower oxidation states in compounds with oxygen? And, moreover, saying that astatine-oxygen bonds usually begin with lower oxidation states (lower as in not above +1?) doesn't seem to have any particular relationship with whether or not there are "halogen-based astatine complexes in an oxidation state above +1". Once I know these things, I can rewrite it to be clear(er). Thanks! Allens ( talk | contribs) 11:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In 1945 and earlier, the research university of the
University of California was the one in Berkeley, and hence saying anything more than
University of California is redundant, misleading, and historically anachronistic.
The only other possible campus of the University of California was its southern division in
Los Angeles, which was a teaching institution, and not a research univerisity.
These campuses of the University of California did not exist back then:
The ones in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Riverside, Irvine, San Diego (or La Jolla), Modesto, or Davis. The
University of California at San Francisco might have existed, but it wasn't called that. The
University of California at Los Angeles might have existed, but it was not a high-level research institution like the one in Berkeley was.
The one in San Francisco was just the medical school, dental school, nursing school, and pharmacy school of the campus in Berkeley.
Also note that its official name has been the
University of California at Berkley since sometime in the '70s or '80s.
09:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.67.106.59 (
talk)
I just read an article on the Phys.Org website that may contain some useful information or sources that could be added to this Wikipedia article. 66.18.219.221 ( talk) 16:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how to interpret this chart of decay products.
Are the times indicated there half-lives? If so, why does Francium have 5 min? The longest half-life I know about is about 20 seconds. Jokem ( talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Following the progression of coloration, the color of Astatine would be darker than black; this points to an explanation of radioactivity as the natural consequence of consistency constraints in the fabric of the universe, where radioactive elements become radioactive by virtue of it being impossible to display the expected physical property because it makes no sense physically speaking. - djb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.44.153 ( talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
|title=
causes this, but I still don't know how to fix it properly.--
R8R (
talk)
13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Here are the issues with ref formatting for this version of the article:
Simple stuff, and needs to be checked and corrected reference by reference. Sandbh ( talk) 10:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried to resolve the problems in comments. I've deleted those last sentences because I don't really understand where they come from, I can't find them in the book in the section I cite. Please check if they are resolved. (My poor English back then; not that it's perfect now, but it has improved since then, I think. Some of the words in question, however, are given in technical dictionaries, but I think I found better ones.)-- R8R ( talk) 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you have that Soviet book in English; that's great. But it will raise a reference checker's eyebrow, since we heavily use the original version in Russian. The best way to fix this would be to change all those citations to the English version (this is English Wiki, after all), which could be done in a number of ways. Either you fix it, or you can send the book to me (if it's digital), and I/we could do it. I can get to it tomorrow, or on Saturday, or on Sunday, etc., i.e. I finally do have the time (actually not yet, but since tomorrow). I think this little thing is the only thing that separates us from the FAC, not this time until I can get back, not article quality, not anything. Just this little thing :) -- R8R ( talk) 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Those citations were meant to represent refs that don't even mention those are found in nature. (I was not sure how to do it and if that should be done.) I think we should reformat this rather than delete it.-- R8R ( talk) 09:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We can fix this by saying 214 and 215 are sometimes not listed due to discrepancies (and errors) in the literature as to the number of naturally occurring isotopes of astatine e.g. some that say, as late as 1989 (Wilson, Stevie, Magee) astatine has no naturally occurring isotopes. Even Wiberg does not list 214. Sandbh ( talk) 21:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I think everything is fine. I've done a close look at the details just to make sure it's fine (and check term linking), and, after having looked at it one more time, I'm sure it is. These are very minor, they won't delay the FAC. Okay, maybe there are those last two, but they won't take too long. As always, all questions regarding grammar are just questions; the article's prose has been looked at closely, I don't really question it.
I have looked for problems, I found what I think might need revising, and then will try to fix those I can (all of them except grammar). I finally have spare time, I think, so maybe tomorrow.
Zalutsky and Pruszynski (2011) say: "The maximum level of 211At that was produced was 6.6 GBq…which to the best of our knowledge, is the highest level of 211At that has been produced to date."
From here, for a given mass X (in grams) of an isotope with atomic mass Y (in g/mol) and a half-life of Z (in s), the amount of radioactivity can be calculated using:
where A = Avogadro's constant, or 6.02214129(27) × 1023
This can be rearranged to give:
For 6.6 gigabequerels of At-211 (atomic mass = 211; half-life = 7.21 hours = 25956 s) this looks like:
Sandbh ( talk) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Pre-FAC I made a mental note to revisit this section to see if it could be improved, as it didn't flow as well as the rest of the article, especially the chemical routes content. This was originally hidden from the article but restored as we couldn't work out why it had been hidden.
The section concerned was largely based on Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov, originally published in 1966, and in a 1970 English translation. Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov are an interesting read but sometimes hard to follow. I don't know if this is an outcome of the way they wrote the original Russian text (in part they seem to assume a lot of pre-knowledge or write indirectly and leave it the reader to work out the implications) or the translation, or both.
After reading Zalutsky and Pruszynski (2011), and some other later references (Gmelin 1986; Larsen, Wieland and Zalutsky 1996; Lindegren, Bäck and Jensen 2001; and two from 2001 and 2014 that didn't make it into the final mix) I concluded that this section could be improved. So I did some restructuring, editing and citation renovating, to sharpen focus, clarity, flow, and currency. This section reads better now IMO. Sandbh ( talk) 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Density can be derived from the mass of the unit cell divided by its volume. If condensed astatine has an FCC structure then a diagonal face of the unit cell will be 4R long where R = atomic radius. The edge of the unit cell will then be equal to the square root of 0.5*(4R*4R). The predicted covalent radius of At is 1.5 angstrom. For the two FCC metals in the p-block, Al and Pb, covalent radii are 1.21 and 1.46 and the metallic radii are 1.43 and 1.75. The ratios of metallic: covalent radii are 1.18 and 1.20, respectively. Presuming the lead ratio also holds for At (predicted covalent radius = 1.5 angstrom) that yields a metallic radius for the latter of 1.8 angstrom. The edge of the unit cell will then be 5.09 angstrom, giving a unit cell volume of 131.87 cubic angstroms. There are 4 atoms in an FCC unit cell. So the weight of the cell would be 4*210 (i.e. the atomic weight of At) divided by Avogadro's number i.e. 6.0221412*10^23 = 139.48 x 10^(–23) grams. That gives a density of 10.57 grams per cubic centimetre. How does that look? ( I'm not proposing to use this in the article). Sandbh ( talk) 12:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I copy edited the lead to remove inaccuracies, tighten the text, and make it follow the main body of the article more closely.
Re: "Accordingly, it is so rare in nature it can be considered virtually non-existent". I read the cited reference (Anders 1959) but wasn't able to find any support for this assertion.
Re: "the high cost of doing this" i.e. producing astatine. I removed this as an unsupported assertion. The cost of producing astatine is modest and is no more than that of iodine-123, which is widely available. Sandbh ( talk) 05:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"Elemental astatine has never been viewed because a mass large enough to be seen by the naked eye would be immediately vaporized by its radioactive heating."
Which I suspect would be a really dumb thing to do with the naked (i.e., unprotected) eye from close range, at least if you wanted to keep said eye intact. Perhaps the text should be clarified as "unaided eye", just in case the "sufficient cooling" becomes possible in the future and someone is taking a close look when the cooling system fails and everything goes boom (or flash as it happens; since this hasn't actually happened nobody knows (and I suspect no one wants to know)) and says afterward that well, Wikipedia said it was OK to look at with the naked eye under those circumstances. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Link. Double sharp ( talk) 13:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Link. (Would've posted it to the WP Elements links page, but since this wouldn't be very useful outside the At article...) Double sharp ( talk) 04:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The time has come, and this is the first A-class review for our WikiProject. I believe the article suits A1-A4 well, and I don't know what could be done to suit A5. I wish to push it to FAC later, and first undergo this. This article, in some places, is done like the FAC of francium. Any suggestions and opinions are surely welcome.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 09:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Yankeesrule3 ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article, and it is the first article I will be reviewing as an official member of WP:ELEM.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Other than these three points, seems good
Other than this one point, seems good
Other than these, seems good
Many printed and online sources say that the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust is "probably less than one ounce" or "about one ounce" or the equivalent in metric units ("about 25 grams"). However, no derivation is shown by these sources. Perhaps the originator of this estimate applied the crustal abundance calculation to the whole mass of the Earth, including the core and mantle, which would yield a total of 24 grams in the entire Earth. However, that would still be a questionable figure because the abundance of ancestor isotopes in the whole mass of the Earth is probably quite different from that of the crust.
The book Holleman-Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry correctly gives a figure of "3·10-24 % by weight" (3 x 10-26) as the crustal abundance and "no more than 45 milligrams" (0.045 gram) as the total amount of astatine in the Earth's crust. A detailed calculation is available at http://ataridogdaze.com/science/As-Earth-crust.html
Gwc100 ( talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Other than these two points, all is good
This whole section seems good for a GA. It probably would not be OK for a FA, but for a GA it is fine.
Nothing wrong here, probably could get past even an FA review.
All statements backed up at some point in main body.
As soon as the chemical reactivity and compounds section is fixed, this should pass the GA review! Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The article says "Carbon tetraastatide has been synthesized", but this seems dubious and I can't verify it. According the Chemical Abstracts, there is only one scientific paper mentioning carbon tetraastatide (Journal of Computational Chemistry (1998), 19(13), 1526-1533) but it is just a computational paper. I don't have access to the book by Emsley used as a reference for this statement, so I can't see exactly what is said there. Can someone find what is said there so we can evaluate it? ChemNerd ( talk) 13:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
As the phase at STP is only theorized, I think we should put (predicted) next to the indication of it being solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheÆtherPlayer ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This (September 2017) is interesting, combined with what it could mean for studies of Nh and Ts. Double sharp ( talk) 03:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Astaine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Asstatine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Page 33. Double sharp ( talk) 13:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Astateen. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Astateen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Astitene. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Astitene until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Is "bombarding" really a scientific term that can be used at the end of the article, right at the end of the lead, before the subsections? FikaMedHasse ( talk) 10:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I just found the phrase a bit comical. FikaMedHasse ( talk) 11:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)