Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of elements by stability of isotopes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 08:42, 6 July 2008 [1].

List of elements by stability of isotopes[edit]

I have worked on this list for some time and I think it should be close to completion now. It has also gone through a comprehensive review recently and thanks to Cryptic C62, lots of feedback was received. Nergaal (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Now support): A solid list, but some issues.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are your issues resolved? Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I got no issues on seeing that list with an FL star. Minor detail, your footnotes are a,b,c,d,e,f,h,h,i. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Elements with stable isotopes
  • Listing these 10 isotopes in order of "commonness" would be a good idea. Using {{Nuclide}} here would keep things from getting stretched.
done Nergaal (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elements without stable isotopes
  • It is extremely easy to switch, but then the sorting will ignore the a/d/h/min/s part. Anybody knows a way around this? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So besides the no-break-space-thing for the numbers-units, is there anything else? Nergaal (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not sure what you mean. There is allready a notes section. Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I didn't see it. I changed m to min, as the symbol for minute is min, and wikilink the first instances. m stands for meter.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awful lots of red links in there
  • References
  • Name formatting is confusing at first. Using Last, First, Last, First makes it very confusing if you don't know that. Try using A. Sonzogni, B. Dumé, P. de Marcillac, N. Coron, G. Dambier, J. LeBlanc (check if this isn't how he spells it), J.P. Molliac, or a variant. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW}
  • This is the usual formatting in academia. The reference is a {{cite journal}} one and I think this is how it is set to work. Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some journals. I never liked this style, and since we have the freedom to choose, I say lets go with a non-confusing one. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference is already in the intro (2nd and 3rd paragraph, check for [1]). Do I need to repeat the reference if I already show in the intro that it is the one I am using?Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. You can use the same source multiple times. (first time use <ref name=NAME> {{citation template}} </ref>, and the second time use <ref name=NAME/>.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Remove the bold formatting if you are going to keep the link there, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
done Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See Also" section goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT.
Something I should have mentioned. The correct order is "See also" → "Footnotes" → "References" (and → "External links"). Gary King (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Institute of Physics Pubishing," → "Institute of Physics Publishing,"?
:) done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For {{cite news}}, the date should be entered as 2001-01-01 per the template's documentation.
done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Footnote A is worded poorly, especially with the "See discussion here" part
  • I agree but I am not sure how to rephrase it. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening sentence could do with work for me, by removing "This is a list of", and don't wikilink bold text. Both per WP:LS
done? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are 80 elements of the first 82 in the periodic table that do have isotopes considered to be stable." → "Of the first 82 elements in the periodic table, 80 have stable isotopes" Or something. There's too many unnecessary words at the moment.
done? Nergaal (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence is too long with too many "and"s
done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence begins with "Also"
done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:NUM on digits and words for numbers below 10, and numbers which could be written using two words
done Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think another paragraph is needed about the subject of the list, rather than (or as well as) two about the format of the list.
  • Ha? What else is missing or not yet clear? Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contents of "Most common isotope" column aren't wikilinked, yet those in "Longest-lived isotope" are. Do the former not have articles?
done Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this actually a requirement for a FA? I wouldn't mind changing (even though only ~1% of readers might have problems) but do you have a suggestion for another ser of colors that would make sense? Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half live of over 7000" I don't know much about this sort of stuff, so 7000 whats? Years? months? seconds?
done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LAYOUT See also should be above the references
done Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Dem393 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have an active peer review, which isn't allowed. Anyway, here arts my comments.

Never got this, how do I close/archive a PR? Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nergaal (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead sentence say "In this list, the chemical elements..." since elements aren't always classified this way.
ok Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what the numbers after the elements mean. For example, explain what the 1 is in hydrogen-1.
done Nergaal (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having colored charts and colored text violates one of our policies, but I don't know which one.--Dem393 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heared this one. Say there is a policy, any suggestions for the legend? Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ACCESS. Anything in colour should also be identified in another way (text-based) for those with images turned off, colourblind people, and the like. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • so you think I should use something like "(blue) stable elements." instead for the legend? Nergaal (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really know what the best way to address this would be. If someone reads a printed copy, colored text might not be much good. Especially if used in a school where it's photocopied a bunch of times. Discuss it at WT:FLC, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legend that you just put up is fine. Anyone can still read the article without having to look at the picture anyway. Besides, the periodic table you made is just a different representation of the information from the tables.

I'm happy with this lost so I support--Dem393 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the list of stable elements, footnote (b) states that the most common isotope may not be the most stable one. In addition to or instead of placing this footnote in the table header, I suggest placing it at all isotopes that are most common yet unstable. --Eddi (Talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went for a different approach. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an improvement, yes. I would be happy, though, to see the relevant unstable isotopes listed in their order among the stable ones, to illustrate that abundancy does not necessarily imply stability. E.g. for calcium: 40
    Ca
    , 44
    Ca
    , 42
    Ca
    , [48
    Ca
    ],     43
    Ca
    . Could this be useful? --Eddi (Talk) 10:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is not about the isotopes found on Earth, but about the ones that are stable. Nergaal (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but when I read that some unstable isotopes are more abundant than some stable ones, I'm curious to see which ones those are. Perhaps it is not very interesting if the abundancy is low (like with calcium), but don't you think it could be interesting if the unstable isotopes were among, say, the top 1-2(-3) in abundancy? --Eddi (Talk) 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article/list now?Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The table of elements with stable isotopes looks very nice, I think. Good work – hope the level of this fits with the rest. Please note that I have not studied the whole article in detail, and I have not considered the FL criteria. By the way, remember units (i.e. years) of the half-lives mentioned in footnotes. --Eddi (Talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this list, the chemical elements are listed in terms of the nuclear stability of their most stable isotopes." Wow - that's a bit of an unengaging and in-yer-face opening statement for me. Can it begin by saying what a stable isotope is or something? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about now? Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works. Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—but can you space the equals signs on both sides, as per MOS? TONY (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes&oldid=1210507301"