Talk:Barium/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 03:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the weekend. I just wanted to alert contributing editors that there is a broken link in ref #39, which will need to be fixed. Thanks, and I look forward to this review! --Tea with toast (話) 03:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the reviewer (in fact I'm the nominator), but here's a small inconsistency: the "Isotopes" section lists ^137m1Ba as the most stable meta state (half-life about 15 min?), but the isotopes of barium article indicates ^133mBa as most stable (half-life about 39 hours). Worse still, the isotopes of barium article shows ^137m1Ba as having a half-life of 2.552(1) min, nowhere near a quarter of an hour; the only meta state of barium having a half life near 15 min is ^131mBa (half-life 14.6(2) min). So something needs to be corrected. Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by R8R Gtrs. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other details[edit]

Thanks for taking care of the above items. There are a few other items that need to be taken care of before I can pass this review:

The article states that ultrapure barium is hard to synthesize, but there is no further information presented as to why is it hard. Please elaborate on this section.
There is a link to the page flotation, which is a disambiguation page. Please redirect this link.
The last sentence in the last page is as follows: "Clothing used must not be blown". What does this mean? Please clarify.

I'll put this article on hold until these changes are made. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 03:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Clothing used must not be blown". (meaning do not pressured air to get barium out of you cloths)
Changed link from flotation to froth flotation

--Stone (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not really the point why it is so hard. Confirm it, and I'll find out the details and add, but it's not a point for Physical properties, and we don't discuss the ultrapure barium anywhere else, because none needs it outside a lab, and even there it can be only described (then utilized maybe). The major reference, Ullman's book, doesn't explain that either, I'm sure they have reasons.

I think (think) it must be because Sr and Ca, to a lesser extent, are hard to remove. The elements that behave different, there are differnt ways to remove for many. (Russian (never saw in Western papers) science loves to talk about "analytical group of elements," grouped by similarity of removal (methods), very often they are removed together. Purification is a multi-stage procedure. Elements from the same group are harder to separate) Also think there may be small fractions of the oxide (given how the element is made). --R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'd like to thank all the editors who have contributed to this article and helped to address specific issues. I special shout out to Materialscientist who just did a marvelous copy edit, which really improved the prose and readability. Great job, everyone! --Tea with toast (話) 03:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Structure[edit]

56 Barium is the last element before the size of the nucleus is increased by the addition of the 2 +4 +4 +4 =14 element series of lanthanum series elements. It is not as structurally stable as was 54 Xenon, which was stable at EE54Xe136 with 28 extra neutrons whereas the isotope EE56Ba138 is stable with only 26 extra neutrons. However it is more stable than the follow on beginning of the Lanthanum series where the stable extra neutron content of the lanthanide series elements falls progressively down to only 23 extra neutrons for OE59Pr141. This indicates the need for a period of nuclear structure reballancing at the beginning of the period.WFPM (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the Nubase mass defect data indicates that EE54Xe136, with 28 extra neutrons, has a mass defect KE value of -86425 Kev and since the reported mass defect KE value of EE56Ba138, is given as -88262 Kev,with only 26 extra neutrons, it is noted that the accumulation of these additional 2 protons is done in a manner such as to further increase the amount of the mass defect. And it may be assumed that these 2 additional protons must have united with 2 of the 28 extra neutrons of the Xe136 atom in a manner such as to create a more stable structure. This could be done by the creation of either 2 deuterons or else an additional alpha particle substructure within the atomic nucleus.WFPM (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]