This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bismuth-209 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
I attempted to remove the section as original research, but my action was reverted on the basis of WP:CALC. I do not believe that it is a "routine calculation" since it involves half-lives. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The article is confusing. The opening of the "Decay properties" section states that "Bismuth-209 was long thought to have the heaviest stable nucleus of any element, but in 2003, a research team [...] discovered [...] a half-life of approximately [...] 1.9×1019 ". Well there you have it, they discovered the approximate half life. But wait, in the last paragraph of the section it states that "The half-life value of Bismuth-209 was confirmed in 2012 [...] (to be) 2.01±0.08 ×1019 ". So, presumably this later confirmation is the actual correct value. But the info box states the earlier half life value - 1.9×1019 .
So which is it? Should the actual, confirmed half life be stated at the beginning of the section, or at least reword the opening part to clarify that they calculated an approximation, rather than a specific 'discovery'? And should the infobox be updated to the newer value?
I have zero expertise in the subject matter - which I think makes me reasonably qualified to review the content for its encyclopedic clarity for the layman! Anastrophe ( talk) 20:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
While very long, the half-life of this isptope doesn't even begin to approach the estimated half-life of the proton, which is around 1.67 x 10^34 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 ( talk) 00:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bismuth-209 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
I attempted to remove the section as original research, but my action was reverted on the basis of WP:CALC. I do not believe that it is a "routine calculation" since it involves half-lives. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The article is confusing. The opening of the "Decay properties" section states that "Bismuth-209 was long thought to have the heaviest stable nucleus of any element, but in 2003, a research team [...] discovered [...] a half-life of approximately [...] 1.9×1019 ". Well there you have it, they discovered the approximate half life. But wait, in the last paragraph of the section it states that "The half-life value of Bismuth-209 was confirmed in 2012 [...] (to be) 2.01±0.08 ×1019 ". So, presumably this later confirmation is the actual correct value. But the info box states the earlier half life value - 1.9×1019 .
So which is it? Should the actual, confirmed half life be stated at the beginning of the section, or at least reword the opening part to clarify that they calculated an approximation, rather than a specific 'discovery'? And should the infobox be updated to the newer value?
I have zero expertise in the subject matter - which I think makes me reasonably qualified to review the content for its encyclopedic clarity for the layman! Anastrophe ( talk) 20:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
While very long, the half-life of this isptope doesn't even begin to approach the estimated half-life of the proton, which is around 1.67 x 10^34 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 ( talk) 00:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)