Talk:Nobelium/Archive 1

Archive 1

other metas

Anyone want to update this in liht of isotopes of nobelium? -lysdexia 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian discovery

Text says this:

In 1992, the IUPAC-IUPAP Transfermium Working Group (TWG) assessed the claims of discovery and concluded that only the Dubna work from 1966 correctly detected and assigned decays to Z=102 nuclei at the time. The Dubna team are therefore officially recognised as the discoverers of nobelium although it was most likely detected at Berkeley in 1959.

The previous paragraphs tell us differently, according to my (subjective) estimation: it tells us that the Berkeley team discovered a signal that was assigned to 254No but then reassigned 252No as fit. By my estimation, this instead indicates that also the Berkeley group detected spurious signals, like the Nobel Institute, and that IUPAC was perfectly correct in assigning the discovery to (FLNR). I think this is the most neutral point of view, and that the text just should say to whome IUPAC assigned the discovery, not claiming that Berkeley detected it too. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything. I'm going to change a "most probable" to a simple "might have" (speculative). Said: Rursus ☻ 15:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory statements re first isolation

The lede says the Russians first isolated No in 1966, but the body of the article describes different groups who did so in the 1950s. Obviously there is a controversy here, and I'm willing to bet quite the hot one. The nature of the dispute isn't really explained in the article, and it likely ought to be. If anyone has that information, please help?

What I'd propose is that we move the 1966 reference out of the lede, and incorporate it into the discussion of disputed claims later on, hopefully with some useful context on how and why the dispute arose. Uberhill 09:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would keep the 1966 reference alone in the lead, as it is the first complete and correct one. The ones before that have inconsistencies and can be mentioned later as claims.

And yes, the info ought to be there, but isn't yet (I've been working from the heaviest elements down, and so I haven't gotten here yet). However, this paper gives the required info. Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nobelium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parcly Taxel (talk · contribs) 09:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for my gaffe over at TFAR (which was recent when this page was created), but it is a done deal and we should move on. Fine then, element 102, here we go.

No problem about the gaffe: all is forgiven. And I mean it. (But do try not to do it again, please?) Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A gaffe with Nobelium? Please explain. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No (LOL), it wasn't about nobelium: it was about his TFA nomination of fluorine. Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   'Tis a shortie here with nobelium and over at the next element lawrencium. I didn't even need to think.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• "A total of twelve nobelium isotopes are known to exist; the most stable is ²⁵⁹No with a half-life of 58 minutes; but the shorter-lived ²⁵⁵No (half-life 3.1 minutes) is most commonly used in chemistry because it can be produced on a larger scale." Between the second and third clauses, a comma and not a semicolon.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Discovery

• "In 1969, the Dubna team carried out chemical experiments on element 102 and concluded that it behaved as the heavier homologue of ytterbium. The Russian scientists proposed the name joliotium (Jo) for the new element, creating an element naming controversy that would not be resolved for several decades, which each group using its own proposed names" You forgot the full stop at the end!
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Characteristics -> Physical

• "Nobelium metal has not yet been prepared in bulk quantities, and therefore cannot be thus prepared using current methods."
  • Actually I meant that current methods cannot prepare bulk No metal. I changed it to "Nobelium metal has not yet been prepared in bulk quantities, and bulk preparation is currently impossible": is that OK? Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

    Acceptable. Parcly Taxel 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's the end of the problems. Parcly Taxel 09:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So there have been theoretical predictions!

NoH₂ and LrH₂ analysed. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The symbol No

In fact, this was quite prominent as a joke in both the American and Russian teams after the Swedish discovery was disproved: that all that was left of the element nobelium was its symbol "No". (This is in L. Vlasov's 107 Stories about Chemistry.) Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. It's a constant joke. 96.238.159.58 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Squirtle2016