Book:Actinides? (That one has three more articles, mostly about environmental effects and nuclear fuel. Here I thought the easiest possible scope definition was "elements which are actinides", because the environmental effects of radioactivity and presence in nuclear fuel are not confined to just the actinides, but also to polonium through radium and fission products.)
Double sharp (
talk)
04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support I just came here to nominate
transuranium element, though actinides is a better grouping for this. interesting timing, great minds think alike. I have noticed all the work to bring many to GA, and then saw at least one was FA. I don't know any reason not to create this as a featured topic, which is also a new feature here to me as of right now.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The transuraniums are a little further off, they'll need another five GAs to be a GT (main, Db, Sg, Bh, Lv). But we're working on it! :-) With period 7 and Ra additionally we'll have a period 7 GT as well.
Double sharp (
talk)
15:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)reply
OK, all of them are fixed. (I unfortunately had to remove the statement re mutations in human Pu experiments on Pu – I didn't find this in the main article. It may very well be true but I'd rather be sure about it for an FA.)
Double sharp (
talk)
07:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Question I don't quite understand why those three topics are in the book but not this GTC. Are they not within the umbrella of Actinides? Alternatively, what are the chances that they can be merged, since they're pretty sparse right now and can always grow
summary style? Now would seem to be the appropriate time to address them, though. Otherwise everything else appears to be in order czar
♔23:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I think the merging should work: environmental radioactivity ought IMHO to cover Ra, Rn, and Po as well as the actinides, and major/minor actinides are just definitions honestly. I'll do it soon.
Double sharp (
talk)
00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hmm, per Nergaal's comment below, perhaps this isn't necessary. Yes, they are about actinides, but they aren't actinides, so if the scope definition is just "elements which are actinides" none of these three articles would qualify.
Double sharp (
talk)
07:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support there are a few ways to have a topic like this. The current way is more of a "list of actinides" but in the future the topic could be expanded to fit the "overview of actinides" role.
Nergaal (
talk)
08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Book:Actinides? (That one has three more articles, mostly about environmental effects and nuclear fuel. Here I thought the easiest possible scope definition was "elements which are actinides", because the environmental effects of radioactivity and presence in nuclear fuel are not confined to just the actinides, but also to polonium through radium and fission products.)
Double sharp (
talk)
04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support I just came here to nominate
transuranium element, though actinides is a better grouping for this. interesting timing, great minds think alike. I have noticed all the work to bring many to GA, and then saw at least one was FA. I don't know any reason not to create this as a featured topic, which is also a new feature here to me as of right now.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)reply
The transuraniums are a little further off, they'll need another five GAs to be a GT (main, Db, Sg, Bh, Lv). But we're working on it! :-) With period 7 and Ra additionally we'll have a period 7 GT as well.
Double sharp (
talk)
15:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)reply
OK, all of them are fixed. (I unfortunately had to remove the statement re mutations in human Pu experiments on Pu – I didn't find this in the main article. It may very well be true but I'd rather be sure about it for an FA.)
Double sharp (
talk)
07:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Question I don't quite understand why those three topics are in the book but not this GTC. Are they not within the umbrella of Actinides? Alternatively, what are the chances that they can be merged, since they're pretty sparse right now and can always grow
summary style? Now would seem to be the appropriate time to address them, though. Otherwise everything else appears to be in order czar
♔23:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I think the merging should work: environmental radioactivity ought IMHO to cover Ra, Rn, and Po as well as the actinides, and major/minor actinides are just definitions honestly. I'll do it soon.
Double sharp (
talk)
00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Hmm, per Nergaal's comment below, perhaps this isn't necessary. Yes, they are about actinides, but they aren't actinides, so if the scope definition is just "elements which are actinides" none of these three articles would qualify.
Double sharp (
talk)
07:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support there are a few ways to have a topic like this. The current way is more of a "list of actinides" but in the future the topic could be expanded to fit the "overview of actinides" role.
Nergaal (
talk)
08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)reply