![]() | Unbinilium has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 23, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() 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 4 sections are present. |
Many of the ones I mentioned on Talk:Ununennium are also relevant here, as E119 and E120 are the last two elements we can feasibly produce with current technology.
Double sharp ( talk) 14:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Double sharp ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
These things really do get dated quickly, especially when the element is not known yet...maybe indeed I should wait, and finish the last known transactinides again with their juicy history, rather then immerse myself in a mess that is not even sorted out yet like it was for 113–118! Double sharp ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp ( talk) 07:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Clear, yes; concise... maybe. Not going to require obvious improvements since it is such an arcane and technical topic, but it could certainly benefit from attention to sentence length and complexities. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead needs to do a better job of summarizing whole article. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The formatting of some of the references, of which there certainly appear to be an appropriate amount and distribution, could stand some work. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | This is a well sourced article on original research. :-) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Nothing found with Earwig's detector. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Fine. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Would be nice to add more, but since no one's actually made it yet, there's really nothing less "science-y" to depict. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passing per improvements. |
Overall, the text seems in decent shape, but quite dense. I'm sure this is not an article 8th graders are going to want to peruse, but it could probably stand to be a little less dense overall. Not a fail criteria, just a recommendation. Jclemens ( talk) 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Combined with RM on "ununennium" here. ( non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unbinilium → 120 (element) – Element had not yet been named, placeholder as atomic number. 108.71.120.62 ( talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the infobox says mass number=320 for the most stable isotope. However, that one is not listed in the infobox, nor mentioned in the text. 302Ubn is in text, but not in infobox. Unbiunium has similar issue. Can someone check these? - DePiep ( talk) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have since changed this to include the possibly synthesised 299120, whose surprisingly long observed half-life might be explained by the formation of a high-spin isomer and consequently hindered alpha decay of 299120 and 295Og. Double sharp ( talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone has considered trying the 244Pu+ 60Fe reaction, especially since 60Fe and 10Be projectiles are being considered as long-lived radioactive beams. This is even better than the 248Cm+54Cr and 251Cf+50Ti reactions that will be tried, as 244Pu+60Fe gives the compound nucleus 304120* that hits the N = 184 shell closure, which should have some effect. It is even almost as good (except for the lowered asymmetry) as the beautiful dream 257Fm+48Ca. So we could seriously think about making isotopes from 295120 all the way to 302120, which would give us a road open to the heavy Og isotopes 297Og and 298Og. Double sharp ( talk) 03:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is not in my field. Just wondering, ComplexRational, what is the overarching rationale for the removal of the refs? It's past my bedtime.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 08:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Unbinilium has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 23, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() 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 4 sections are present. |
Many of the ones I mentioned on Talk:Ununennium are also relevant here, as E119 and E120 are the last two elements we can feasibly produce with current technology.
Double sharp ( talk) 14:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Double sharp ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
These things really do get dated quickly, especially when the element is not known yet...maybe indeed I should wait, and finish the last known transactinides again with their juicy history, rather then immerse myself in a mess that is not even sorted out yet like it was for 113–118! Double sharp ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp ( talk) 07:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Clear, yes; concise... maybe. Not going to require obvious improvements since it is such an arcane and technical topic, but it could certainly benefit from attention to sentence length and complexities. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead needs to do a better job of summarizing whole article. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The formatting of some of the references, of which there certainly appear to be an appropriate amount and distribution, could stand some work. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | This is a well sourced article on original research. :-) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Nothing found with Earwig's detector. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Fine. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Would be nice to add more, but since no one's actually made it yet, there's really nothing less "science-y" to depict. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passing per improvements. |
Overall, the text seems in decent shape, but quite dense. I'm sure this is not an article 8th graders are going to want to peruse, but it could probably stand to be a little less dense overall. Not a fail criteria, just a recommendation. Jclemens ( talk) 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Combined with RM on "ununennium" here. ( non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unbinilium → 120 (element) – Element had not yet been named, placeholder as atomic number. 108.71.120.62 ( talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the infobox says mass number=320 for the most stable isotope. However, that one is not listed in the infobox, nor mentioned in the text. 302Ubn is in text, but not in infobox. Unbiunium has similar issue. Can someone check these? - DePiep ( talk) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have since changed this to include the possibly synthesised 299120, whose surprisingly long observed half-life might be explained by the formation of a high-spin isomer and consequently hindered alpha decay of 299120 and 295Og. Double sharp ( talk) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone has considered trying the 244Pu+ 60Fe reaction, especially since 60Fe and 10Be projectiles are being considered as long-lived radioactive beams. This is even better than the 248Cm+54Cr and 251Cf+50Ti reactions that will be tried, as 244Pu+60Fe gives the compound nucleus 304120* that hits the N = 184 shell closure, which should have some effect. It is even almost as good (except for the lowered asymmetry) as the beautiful dream 257Fm+48Ca. So we could seriously think about making isotopes from 295120 all the way to 302120, which would give us a road open to the heavy Og isotopes 297Og and 298Og. Double sharp ( talk) 03:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is not in my field. Just wondering, ComplexRational, what is the overarching rationale for the removal of the refs? It's past my bedtime.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 08:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)