Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astatine/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Astatine

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a radioactive chemical element. It has been one step away from this process since 2012, when its prose was heavily improved by a GOCE member. It became a GA a long time ago, and now, after recent edits, it's a sure great article. After additions in 2012 and 2015, it is definitely comprehensive (but still not featuring too much), and it should be interesting enough for those familiar with chemistry; however, some effort has been applied to make an article on a technical topic like this one readable even for those who are not. R8R (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• What is the source of the data for the decay chain? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I added one.--R8R (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: could you please double check the half-lives? There appear to be some half-life discrepancies between those shown in the image and this source (p. 64). The image may need to be amended to match this source, if the original source cannot be located. Sandbh (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's good that you noticed it. My first idea was to check the NUBASE database, it's a huge source for nuclei stuff here on Wiki, but the link didn't work, and cached versions didn't appear as well. However, I just did some search and I found it; it matches the data we present. I updated the reference and the link therein for both the article and the picture description.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sound choice. I checked each decay path and found a discrepancy for At-217; image shows 32 s; NUBASE shows 0.032 s. There are some other minor discrepancies: Np-237: 2.14e+06 y v 2.144e+06 y; Pa-233: 27 d v 26.967 d; Ra-225: 15 d v 14.9 d; Bi-213 46 m v 45.59 m; Pb-209 3.25 m v 3.253 m; Tl-209 2.2 m v 2.161 m. Since At-217 will need to be amended I presume the other minor discrepancies should be done? NUBASE carefully explains (pp. 9–10) how they have arrived at their half-lives, given differences in the literature. Sandbh (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I assumed those roundings were fine and I indeed missed the fact the astatine and lead half-lives were measured in time units different than those the picture showed. But it would definitely not hurt to match the source more closely. I double-checked it and corrected it; I think it should be fine now.--R8R (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the old image in the article. In the picture history the corrected version is listed below the old graphic---should be the other way round? In the corrected version I believe Fr should read 4.9 m and Pb 3.253 h.

I see things the way the are supposed to be. It may have to do with that the server does not always immediately react to such changes. In some time, it should fix itself or maybe it already did.--R8R (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All good now. Was a cache issue at my end. Sandbh (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

• I cannot support it as long as the infobox contains: "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin". I know this is a wider issue but we really do not need the respell renderings as well as IPA. --John (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the IPA links to Help:IPA for English#Key, and the mouseover for each segment of the IPA gives its meaning, I think we can safely get rid of the respelling for all elements. (In the case of cobalt it's downright harmful; the second syllable isn't pronounced like the word bolt!) Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I must admit, it's not really a question I ever considered. It's at very least a Project Elements-wide thing and I don't usually get into such things. I have given it a deep thought nonetheless.

  For most elements, the pronunciation is simple. Why not abandon it altogether? There are some names pronounced not the way you'd expect them to be pronounced. Dubnium (doob-), darmstadtium (-shtahdt-), etc. But those are relatively new and follow the original pronunciations in Russian and German, correspondingly. There are also those synthetic unun- names (oon-oon-). I bet those need pronunciation keys. But we're talking about astatine now.

  From a perspective of an English learner, it's not really so easy. For example, why is "-tine" in "astatine" pronounced not as "tine," but as either "teen" or "tin"? I took my time to find an answer in the Internet, but I failed to do so. (I don't really consider myself a learner, even though some learning would never make things worse, and could be actually helpful for me, but, as I said, I'd given it a deep thought.) Why, really? To my language experience, which is certainly not perfect (since I'm not a native speaker and don't even currently live in an English-dominant country), but, I believe, extensive enough, it feels right to pronounce the syllable as "tin," but I can't really tell why. This does raise a question whether we should include the pronunciation key.

  You can argue the whole English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a student's book (which is indeed true), and thus it shouldn't teach you how to pronounce things, since it's aimed at native speakers or their equals, as any regular encyclopedia; there's even a Simple English Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think I'd use it. If it helps to resolve possible ambiguity, why not. Won't really hurt us, since pronunciation is a very basic property of a title of any article, doesn't take a significant cut of an article, and might actually resolve some questions (after all, it's not a typical English word, but a very technical one with no related word in common English vocabulary; for comparison, not wanting to transcribe "nuclear fission" is certainly fine). In either case, it's really a part of a wider question that should be decided on elsewhere.--R8R (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  I accept that this needs a wider discussion. My point is that one pronunciation guide may be needed on some elements, many would be fine with none (gold, tin, silver, oxygen) but there are none that need two separate systems side by side like most elements currently have. --John (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

re John (and Double sharp, R8R Gtrs). I have met John in this issue some weeks ago here. That discussion did not evolve beyond step one (opening paragraph + my reply), and so did not conclude in a new consensus. As for this FAC post: I see John puts up two critiques: (1) remove the {{Respell}} pronunciation altogether (from all elements) and (2) IPA is not needed in e.g. tin, in the later reply.

About (2) remove IPA and respell completely from some other element pages (element infoboxes): is not on-topic here, it is not about astatine.

About (1): remove {{Respell}}. The one argument mentioned here: "we do not need respell renderings as well as IPA": This is a wider issue and not astatine specific (which in itself could be a closing conclusion, but alas). In general and in this article, IPA and respell are about the same, but they themselves are not the same, so this is not a redundancy. Then, the presence of {Respell} is based on WP:MOS/Pronunciation, which says in its lede:

For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA.

I can not add much to this. Since adding {Respell} follows MOS, this can not be a FA blocker. As I read it, John asks for a MOS change. I want to keep {Respell} in. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am fine to continue the general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, though I tend to agree with your last statement here as well. Just to be utterly clear, my oppose very much still counts for this nomination as long as it has the ugly and redundant material I highlighted above. --John (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify how your concern agrees with the WP:FACR? The pronunciation as written agrees with WP:PRON, so the source of your conflict would appear to be a personal preference only. Praemonitus (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

1a. --John (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Prose means the grammatical structure. I'm not seeing the connection. Since it is an informational table, I'd expect the main concern to be 1c. Is the information presented incorrect? Praemonitus (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Is "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin" your idea of brilliant prose? It looks clunky to me. Hence my oppose. --John (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

John, it's not prose. -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It certainly isn't good prose. Neither is is informational. So why is it there? --John (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that the information is compliant with the MoS, how would you propose it be reworded? (Keeping in mind that this is a table.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would propose that it would be better to reword this table cell to "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/". --John (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not prose, so there is not even a possibility to qualify that non-prose. I note that the argument now is full circle. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears you do not have a valid concern since all you did is remove information that is allowed under WP:PRON. "For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA." Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Allowed /= optimal. FAC is the realm of the optimal. Having four pronunciation guides on an article is not optimal. I hold that this fails 1a, as I said above. You are welcome to your opinion on whether my concern is or is not valid. I suppose it will be up to the FAC delegate to decide that, not you. --John (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, as you now merely state the obvious and your preference seems entirely personal and resolute, further discussion seems pointless. Yes I'm sure the FAC delegate will make a suitable adjudication of your concern. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you think it is obvious. I think it is obvious too. My concern is not entirely personal as it is shared by Double sharp and R8R. --John (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Good day. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask @DePiep: and @Praemonitus: are there are any reasons for retaining the second pronunciation guide? Since it isn't mandated by WP:MOS, and in the interests if progressing this nomination, I'm currently inclined to remove the second guide. If this is a broader question that extends across the inclusion of second pronunciation guides for other elements then it would be better to have that discussion in WP:ELEM, and subsequently revisit astatine if needs be, rather than compromise a support. I agree with John that the pronunciation cell plus its accompanying entry cell constitutes prose (i.e. written or spoken language other than poetry). Sandbh (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First response: "and in the interests if progressing this nomination": as the presence of respelling is explicitly within MOS (link cited above), this is not a FAC treshold.

I don't think the subthread above (last contribution 19:37 by Praemonitus) has lead to an other conclusion (i.e., no changes to follow), unless someone can point to a sound reasoning in there we must have missed. And I don't agree with your opinion that the data row constitutes prose. That was introduced only to wiggle in a WP:FACR argument (after which no substance followed). Since you, Sandbh, note that the label "pronunciation" is part of the prose: that makes it even less likely prose. The whole data row is not spoken as it is written, and it is not intended to be so. It is not a sentence, not even a non-verb one. There is no prose in context either. It is not prose (which is mainly described in opposition to poetry only anyway), it is a list item. (Let me add this pun - skip it if you're not in for fun today: the pronunciation is poetry, its rhyming!). Also, please check your argument against this: why would the respell be bad prose, and the IPA be OK? For the record I want to note that IMO John's contributions in this topic above introduce word play, and in other places about this same topic the tone turned less constructive (1, 2). This about the frame of arguments, my actual reasons to keep it in may follow (but are already present in the discussions). -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

re Sandbh's Remove Respelling pronunciation guide "in the interests if progressing this nomination": I think we have established from the MOS that the addition (keeping Respell) is not a contra-indicator for FA. And since IPA is not a Latin alphabet, WP:accessability is a serious reason to add pronunciation respelled. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – overall it looks to be in good shape. I just see a few minor issues: My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• 'cationic salts' and 'radiocolloid' are technical terms that should be linked.

  "cationic salts" could do better with a rewording, which I tried to make. "Radiocolloid" means "radioactive colloid" (quite obvious, isn't it). The word "colloid" was linked before, and it occurred when we were talking about chemistry, for which radioactivity does not matter. In medicine, radioactivity is important (it's why astatine is used in medicine at all), and it is commonly shown by that "radio-" prefix in this context. I'm not really sure if we should link it again to colloid (we could link it to the radiocolloid article if we had one).

  As I only vaguely know what a colloid is, no it wasn't obvious to me. :-) Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• "J., T. P. (2010).": For consistency, the 'J.' should be expanded.

  Definitely :) Fixed it.

• "R., Kalervo (1956)." Is this correct? (Last name first?)

  I just checked, the person is Kalervo Rankama (this is a Finnsh name, surnames follow given names, as in all European names), so the correct version would be "Rankama, K." I corrected it.

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. This is much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. An unusually comprehensive treatment given the relatively obscure subject matter. I worked on it but the foundations had already been laid by User:R8R Gtrs and User:Allens by the time I came on board. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see, including some nice images. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this article. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Per sources I have added "Jr." to author name Aten Jr., A. H. W., but I'm not sure if it should go in |last=Aden Jr.. Three times. Documentation Template:Citation#Authors is not clear to me. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Solved: reread documentation, I understand should be entered as |first=A. H. W., Jr.. Edited. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments, basically nitpicks:

• From the lead: "Elemental astatine has never been viewed..." and then "may have a dark or lustrous appearance". I think you need a conditional or something for the second sentence. How can you describe the appearance of something that can't physically exist? "would likely have...", maybe.

Thank you, I've adapted your suggestion and changed the second sentence so that it starts, "Astatine is likely to have a dark…" Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• From the compounds section: "addition of silver(I) then precipitates astatine, only partially as silver(I) astatide (AgAt) (or not at all)". Not sure how to interpret the last parenthetical. If some or all of the precipitate isn't silver astatide, any idea what it is?

I've copy edited this to try and make it clearer. If there is no precipitate I gather the astatine remains in solution as At⁰ or At⁺. Sandbh (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are a lot of red links in the compounds section. Are these articles likely to be created?

I refreshed my red link fu and have removed these as they're unlikely to be created soon, nor as anything better than stubs. 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mendeleev's table isn't clickable.

@DePiep: would you be able make the table clickable please? Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Done by setting |base_link=Periodic_table#Second_version_and_further_development. (Best target for topic of predicted eka's I could think of). -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• In the uses section: "this is long enough to permit multistep labeling strategies." - This seems to be the only occurrence of the word 'labeling' in the article, so it's not clear what this refers to.

I've now linked this to radioactive tracer. Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's an entire paragraph about astatine's advantages in treating the thyroid, but thyroid treatment isn't in the table, and the paragraph never does actually come out and say that astatine is used this way. The 'preferable in diagnosis' claim is cited to a source from 1970. Can you be a bit clearer on this point?

  A good catch. I will think if anything else should be done on this, and will fix it soon.--R8R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  @R8R Gtrs: I have a proposed fix which I'll post in a few hours shortly. Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  I removed the reference to thyroid treatment as, while it is mentioned in the older literature i.e. Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov (1970) this particular line of research doesn't appear to have gone anywhere in the more recent literature judging by here and e.g. PubMed. Does my edit look OK? Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  I believe so. I had a similar edit in mind, because I wasn't able to find any recent reference to that being actually used, but at any moment of time I thought I could be missing something and more search was needed. Now I am quite confident, this issue has been taken care of properly, thank you.--R8R (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• For completeness' sake: no objections to the use of the respell template. This seems like a style issue best resolved elsewhere.
• Overall, great job! This is very readable and thorough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Use and precautions

Sorry I didn't get back to this in a reasonable amount of time. I just read the newly revised "Uses and precautions" section and its coverage of medical uses. Much improved but I think this section still needs a little bit of refinement.

• "Results of early experiments indicated that a cancer-selective carrier would need to be developed; this did not occur until the 1970s." Checking the source, this is apparently referring to monoclonal antibodies - hybridomas were developed in the 70s, but humanization didn't happen till the 80s and the first cancer drugs using targeted antibodies started getting approved in the late 90s. I see that there were some animal studies on astatine delivery by antibody and your description follows the source, but from a biology perspective it's a bit oversimplified.

  Yes, monoclonal antibodies are the bodies in question; also, I (and, as far as I can see, Google Books) haven't heard a word of astatinated hybridomas. I specifically mentioned we are talking about mAbs at that moment, and it seemed it was the change that was needed; but if I missed something and something else should be done, please let me know.

• Sorry, I wasn't clear - hybridomas are cells used to make monoclonal antibodies. I'm sure the proteins must be astatinated after purification, since trying to do it to the cells would probably kill them :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• You also wikilink carrier proteins in this paragraph, but that article is about endogenous proteins that facilitate transport of ions, nutrients, other proteins, and so on. I think this discussion would be clearer if you mentioned examples from the sources (antibodies and signaling proteins).

  Okay. One of the sources also mentioned affibodies, I added those, too.

I trimmed and copy edited this section so it now refers just to molecular carriers "such as these". Also mentioned the potential weakness of some carbon- astatine bonds. I may put affibodies and signaling proteins (plus a citation for the latter) back in a little later today. Sandbh (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Last one: last paragraph, "astatine is preferentially concentrated..." - make it clear in this sentence that we're still talking about animal studies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I specified it.

Thank you. I'll have another look at the literature and make some adjustments. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and tried to fix the mentioned issues as close to what was suggested as I could. (It's been quite a while since this section was written, and much was there before the work started, so it took me some research to make sure I'm doing it right, and I still would love you to check if I got it right.)--R8R (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; made some adjustments as noted above; it should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

These modifications look good to me. Done picking at the biology in a chemistry article now! I support this nomination. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal's comments (arbitrary break for easier editing this long page)

Comments

• I find the second para to be a bit too long/detailed. I would drop some of the "believed to be" stuff.

  Are we talking about the lead? If so (or even if not), what exactly do you find superfluous? I think we have just enough, we don't go into details, those are very basic things (color, appearance, conductivity in very general, mp in very general), just for the lead.

put "are consistent with it behaving as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), specifically as a heavier analog of iodine" then change

"It will probably have a higher melting point than iodine, comparable to those of bismuth and polonium. Chemically, astatine can behave as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), and could be expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals; it is known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. It can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens. " to "Astatine is likely to have a dark or lustrous appearance and be either a semiconductor or a metal, and it will probably have a higher melting point than iodine. Chemically, astatine can behave similar to other halogens, as it expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals and known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. However, it can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens." Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a try. As close to what I understood as I could.

Seems fine now.Nergaal (talk)

• "chlorine is green" it is NOT

  Changed to "yellow-green"

• "described as being a black solid" => as probably being a

  Fair enough.

• "half of a given quantity of astatine will vaporize in an hour" this is incredibly vague. the time will be heavily dependent on the sample size and shape. I find this sentence a bit overly-simplified, if not possibly wrong

  Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov say, "The vaporization from clean glass surfaces can be approximately described by an exponential curve with a half-vaporization period of about 1 hr." I added the qualifier "approximately" to the wiki article text.

Works well now. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• solid astatine => it only talks about At2. anybody mentioned polymeric, ?metallic? At?

  Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

looks good

• "complexes" I am not sure this is a real verb

  It is a real verb you can find in a dictionary, but it's a very technical one. Changed it to "forms complexes."

• "The chemistry of astatine is "clouded b" => maybe move this as a first sentence in the section?

  Good suggestion, done. Sandbh (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Pauling scale needs wikilinking

  Legit.

• "are normally tested" I think this should be in past tense

  I checked Ullmann, they use past tense for a similar statement, so I changed it.

retweaked it Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• "astatine hydride instead." instead of what?

  We had "usually referred to as hydrogen astatide" in the previous sentence. It should be clear enough, I think :)

missed it. the text was cloudy before so I missed it but it looks clear now. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• palladium and thallium might need wikilinking

  done

• "triastatinate]"

  fixed

• in the chemical section please mention that "compounds with oxidations states from -1 to +7 have been characterized"

  I gave it a brief mention. Should be good enough, I think, but feel free to comment.

I was thinking the chem prop section but what you added works well too. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• wikilink "polonium-218" and 216, or radium A /Th A

  Wikilink to what exactly? Polonium-218 and polonium-216 redirect to isotopes of polonium, where they don't even have separate sections. Radium A and thorium A are both red links.

The old naming of isotopes is archaic enough that even chemists these days might not understand them. Linking the archaic names the the respective history section of the radioactive elements works well for those needing clarification. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Also, the isotopes have been explained in parentheses by now. Should be good enough.

• wikilink cyclotron

  Sure

• Karlik and Bernert => which of the chains; also which 2 of the other 3 chains?

  Their first suggestion was that astatine-218 occurred and was an alpha emitter (confirmed, uranium series), and it was suggested that so did and were At-216 (not confirmed) and -215 (confirmed, actinium series). And later still, we got the neptunium series. I rewrote it that way, except I left out the unconfirmed isotope part because this seemed to be an unnecessary detail (but it could be argued it is important. It should be fine either way).

• is "the four natural decay chains" an accepted term? if yes, maybe wikilink?

  Not a real term, just a thing of prose. We also had "astatine was found as a product of naturally occurring decay chains" just before this. I don't think anyone will be confused.

Looks fine now, but perhaps mention something along the lines of "it is not found in the last of the four actinide decay chains, the thorium series". Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see the point for the mass excess for daughter nuclei; also the first columns in the table don't seem to sort well

  Sorting seems to be fine by me; what is the problem? Mass excesses are aimed for those who are not too good with the whole nuclei topic, so they (some of them who can approximate subtraction without writing it down) understand where this would come from, thus better understanding of the article in general (and courage to understand other parts). We're not limited with space, and we don't have an awfully long article here so we have to cut all details we could.

sorting seems fine now but I still think the table is just too much. yes we have space (especially in the isotopes list) but currently the numbers look daunting. Are the numbers in column 3 and 4 saying anything interesting to the reader? If yes, then put them in a graph, but don't put them in the main text of a wikipedia FA. Most people are intimidated by numbers, especially of tables with 5 sig-figs. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I moved the table to isotopes of astatine for now. (Okay, it was there; so just deleted it from the main article.)

• "alpha hl" => "alpha decay hl"

  Did it in a note. Don't really want to do it in the table because shortened column titles are usually fine and this is explained in a note.

Not sure what you did, but I was referring to the last column header in the table. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I took another look. We have sufficient space. I added the word "decay" there.

• the meta-stable isotopes discussion should be trimmed and moved at the end of the section

  While moving it down certainly can be argued for (I followed), I don't see the point in trimming. While you and I understand, what this all is about, not everyone does. We don't have a super large article here. It certainly won't kill us to make this more understandable for those who are unfamiliar with the whole nuclei thing.

Seems fine now. Nergaal (talk)

• "Earth's crust" => Earth's entire crust

  Fair enough for "with the total amount in the Earth's entire crust estimated to be less than one gram at any given time." However, I didn't add the word for "although it is the least abundant of the non-transuranic elements in the Earth's crust," because it would seem redundant here.

The first instance was the vague one. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• "-217, -218, and -219" => should the dashes be here?

  Could you quote a rationale on such punctuation? A quick look didn't help me with this. I'll try again a bit later, but if you know it, please, let me know.

Unless there is a grammatical rule that rules, I'd prefer the hyphen to stay. The more complete construct is like "astatine-216, -217 and -218". The hyphen indicates the omission of "astatine" in the listing, from the name pattern. Without prefixed hyphen "217" suggests a stand-alone word (noun), which it is not. Plain "217" is not the way "astatine-217" is written in sources. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if it is the correct punctuation, I still find it to look weird (maybe because it involves numbers). For enumerations I would prefer to either say "isotope x through y", or use the "^xAt, ^yAt, etc" notation. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Isotope x through y" would make sense. The latter nomenclature might be difficult for those who are not familiar with it (they may be few, but not none). However, Materialscientist did it your way, with dashes. I don't see the need to correct that.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I can not claim that the dashes are correct writing, just that I easily recognize the list meant. "x through y" of course could only work in a complete series, which is not always the case in the article. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• move the Np series pic a bit up

  Moved just a bit up.

Nice work! Nergaal (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your words and for your time. I checked issues that seemed to be the easiest to fix. I will think about others on Wednesday or Thursday.--R8R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks from me too Nergaal, for your insights. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support pending fixing the last of my comments. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the table and I do think some table should be present. But I think the highest utility columns would be these ones: Z || H-l || % alpha || % beta || %SF. It would basically cover part of what is now in the infobox but for a longer list and in more detail. Nergaal (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

More missing topics

• There is no information on the spectrum, see doi=10.1364/JOSA.54.000965 Absorption Spectrum of Astatine RALPH McLAUGHLIN JOSA, Vol. 54, Issue 8, pp. 965-967 (1964)

Spectrum info has now been added. Sandbh (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• There is very little information on the diastatine molecule, eg bond length, bond energy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Predicted bond length and dissociation energy added. Sandbh (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• Prose is still a tad choppy but the subject matter I can see is hard to knead together. I tweaked a bunch of things - yo might want to check I haven't accidentally changed the meanings. Can't see any deal-breakers prose-wise and can't see any omissions.

Thank you for your most welcome edits. They read fine to me. Sandbh (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semiconductor appears to be mentioned in lead but not in body of text

Thank you; have added mention of this possibility in the Physical characteristics section. Sandbh (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Might just read over again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from me as a reader. The infobox now says: "Element category: metalloid, sometimes classified as a nonmetal, may be a metal^[1]". Is it just me thinking that "sometimes" and "may be" better be merged in to the same wording, to note the scientific issue? As it is now, it reads like a different 'scale' of dispute/uncertainity. I also note that metalloid-metal-nonmetal makes a complete trend, there are no more options. In other words, it now says like 'it could be anything'. I do like the sentence style, not just a listing. (Caveat: English language and topic are not my specialty). -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The listing tries to show that astatine, although classified as a metalloid is sometimes instead classified as nonmetal (due to the instinctive presumption that because astatine is a halogen it must be a nonmetal). We've added that it "may be" a metal based on the 2013 relativistic modelling work by Hermann, Hoffmann, Ashcroft. My impression is that the jury is still out on their work (see the second external link: Astatine: Halogen or Metal?) although Google is showing 7 citations to date, with no dissenters that I can see. Sandbh (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt this sourced mixed status, I thought the wording could be nicer. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've changed the category to: "metalloid, sometimes classified as a nonmetal, or a metal" and added the 1940 and 2014 citations to the "or a metal" bit. Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

OK for me. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Prosaic Parcly Taxel

Comparing with the articles on fluorine (which I am notable for) and heavier actinides I am confident that only criteria 1a remains contentious. While I am generally OK with the prose some technical details concern me:

• The use of in-line atomic masses (astatine-211) over superscripts (²¹¹
  At, ^202m1
  At, etc.) – isn't this standard formatting when referring to isotopes?

Our MOS:CHEM says: "Isotopes should be labelled by their mass number, e.g. ¹⁴C and ¹⁸F.", and here more specific: write the element name. I can read this as not requiring the symbol per se. IUPAC's red book (pdf p.60) says: "... is named oxygen-18 and has the symbol ¹⁸O." This leaves open to write the name in prose. (as I prefer btw). -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Y Yus Sorry that my brain and fingers are shaky now. Parcly Taxel 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

For comparison, they often write things like "ingots of Fe" in contexts of chemistry or similar ones. It doesn't mean this is the correct way; it just takes less space and (given the context) the reader is supposed to be easily able to understand what is meant. It is basically the same; using the "symbol after a superscripted mass number" notation outside of the equations is a jargon, which is often used because it may seem favorable, given the readers will understand it. But it cannot be seen as the right way to refer to nuclides. Not to mention accessibility: if you know nothing about nuclides and stuff, astatine-211 is, well, some kind of astatine, while ²¹¹
At is... what is it, actually? I don't know, this article is too difficult, I'll leave it.

Oh, my hands are back online. I think we could add a short note on the first occurrence of the ^AZ notation in the main text to inform the reader. Parcly Taxel 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea does make sense; I gave it a thought. Currently, we only use this notation in the uses table. I think it's okay to write "²¹¹At-containing" instead of "astatine-211-containing" (as long as I remember, we had it that way some time before, but, you know, looks). Anyway, I'm sure that if a reader is puzzled by this notation, he won't read and will just skip the table anyway, because it (especially the compounds) is quite hardcore if you're not familiar with (at least, the basics of) radiochemistry and stuff, and for those who will read it, this notation is understandable anyway. Plus, while it is certainly considered jargon outside of equations (and some chemical isotope-related nomenclature), the nomenclature is very common in atomic physics and radiochemistry; while I do want to make this article fairly accessible, I'm afraid we may end up having to explain a huge number of things to make sure everyone understands them, so this would be some an overkill. That is why I would not do it: it would be practically useless (given the context) and explaining the very basics of nomenclature may be too much.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I reconsidered. While I was writing the reply, the idea grew on me, plus we do this with the explanation of the isomer notation. I added a note in the nuclear reactions table; I think it belongs there.--R8R (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Some clusters of sentences appear fragmented, especially the synthesis procedures: "The astatine-containing cyclotron target is heated to a temperature of around 650 °C. The astatine volatizes and is condensed in (typically) a cold trap. Higher temperatures of up to around 850 °C may increase the yield, at the risk of bismuth contamination from concurrent volatization." → "For "wet" extraction the cyclotron target is heated to around 650 °C, from which astatine volatizes and condenses in a cold trap or other suitable confinement; temperatures up to 850 °C may be employed for higher yield, albeit risking concurrent bismuth contamination."

  I wrote it this way because short sentences are easier to understand and to follow, you get a period (thus a very short break) every time you are presented a new fact, so you understand everything within these breaks and you don't have to re-read sentences. Long sentences don't allow that, and you don't have that moment to catch up with the text if you didn't get something immediately, and unless you stop yourself (which a period could do) and think for another moment, you'll find out you missed that one and have to re-read the text. Even semicolons are not as good as periods at breaking text and allowing small pauses. (I don't remember if the Soviet book this section heavily relies on uses short or long sentences; could be both. I don't have the book on me at the moment, although I may check later if you wish.) The copyedit conducted in 2012 didn't change it, even though it was incredibly thorough, so I would basically suggest it's not really a problem. But if anyone else agrees short sentences are not desirable, I guess we may change this.

  I'm not for any style on this article unlike what I did to fluorine; however (as I said before) I may beautify some sentence clusters myself soon. Parcly Taxel 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  I am open-minded on prose in general, so if you think you can actually improve it, please, feel free to try.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Based on the previous issue the "dry" and "wet" sections appear wobbly and could be folded into their parent section dealing with separation methods.

  I don't really get it; how would the article benefit if we remove the subtitles? The alternative would be to remove them, and start each para with "The dry/wet technique is conducted like this: ..." (or similar), but it would just add more text we could go without and make the navigation within the section slightly more difficult. But again, if someone else agrees we do need more text and less titles, I will not argue.--R8R (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  Nah, ignore it. Parcly Taxel 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If time and my sleep cycle permit I may correct some of these uncanny facts myself, but tell me what you think anyway. Parcly Taxel 13:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

I was hoping for a topic expert to do the source review, but we'll make do with an ignorant one then :).

• No disambig links - OK.
• Consistent reference formatting - OK.
• Academic reliable sources look OK (but a topic expert would be better to judge that). A 1940er source is only used to verify "historic" information - OK.
• Dead links: Refs #7 (NUBASE) and #35 (Visscher 1996). Please check for archived links (archive.org) or possible replacements. Both sources have sufficient bibliographic information, so a link wouldn't be necessary if a replacement can't be found.

  The link for the ref #7 is accessible via my computer. I have fixed the link for the ref #35.--R8R (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  Checked this again - ref name "Audi2003" was defined twice, and the duplicate second link version was dead. I have removed the redundant cite template and added an archive link (just to be sure). All OK now. GJ

• Several explanatory footnotes are not sourced. Please double-check to make sure, that all of those comments are really uncontroversial "common" knowledge or simply clarify an already sourced detail. Otherwise they should be sourced.

  I have carefully checked all notes. I believe they all are well-sourced, except for one (m), where I added a reference:

  a) a single quote, sourced

  b) quite a singular fact, sourced (I remember adding it and the source itself)

  c) two facts, both sourced

  d) a singular fact, sourced

  e) a general description of an electronegativity scale, sourced

  f) a singular fact, sourced

  g) one experiment and two singular facts, all sourced

  h) just the same as in the main text, but spelled out (no ref needed)

  i) just a description of the notation used in a particular table within an article (no ref needed)

  j) a note we're talking about predicted rather than measured data. (No ref needed.)

  k) the text of the note is a direct consequence of what is stated within the article and sourced there. This could be (and actually was) calculated via a common calculator using common nuclear decay laws. I argue this also needs no ref.

  l) explains scientific nomenclature (no ref needed)

  m) mentions two authors, sources one; added a source for the second author.

  n) explains common knowledge (no ref needed)

  o) mentions one work, sources it

  p) refers to another work, sourcing it

  q) explains common knowledge (no ref needed)

  r) a single quote, sourced--R8R (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the detailed explanation. If no topic expert objects, this should be OK. GJ

• Aside from the footnote question, the article is thorougly sourced in all sections - OK.

No major concerns, point 4 and 5 need a bit of cleanup and clarification. GermanJoe (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for giving this a go. It does matter to me :)--R8R (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All OK now (have fixed the cite problem with ref 7). GermanJoe (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.