Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dubnium/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) 15:06, 21 April 2018 [1].

---

Dubnium

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In this article, we are reaching deep into the dark corners of the periodic table. I hope I've made the journey informative and interesting enough!--R8R (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DePiep

All my comments are mute now. -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Section Reports now says: "... (JINR) in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, in 1968." To me, "Russian SFSR" does not seem to add information. Remove? - DePiep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not. The Soviet Union was technically not just a sovereign country but a union of sovereign countries. Throughout all of its history, Russia (i.e., the Russian SFSR we're talking about) was one of those. So I consider that an important part of an introduction of a Soviet city/town.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure it is correct, but could there be confusion after "Moscow Oblast"? Or was the SFSR relevant for JINR (I'd guess it is a state-level enterprise). -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that I am trying to keep my writing style uniform. Moscow Oblast is probably clear; but what if it were, say, Gomel Oblast, Kherson Oblast, or Ulyanovsk Oblast? That's why I consistently use this "town, region, SSR, Soviet Union" four-level introduction format for Soviet places.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• The article now says: "the JINR" and "Berkeley". I'm not sure myself, but should this not be congruent in grammar (remove "the" in places)? On a minor note, it also writes "Berkeley team, Berkeley scientists" but not similarly for JINR; this may be good for readability though. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know the grammar behind this myself but I checked and it appears you are correct. I'll fix this tomorrow. Your latter note is also worthwhile; I'll see what I can do about this.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Also involved: "Dubna" is sometimes used meaning JINR. Could be in the check then. As I said, not need to downgrade good readibility for all this. - DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Also true, yes. I had that in mind when writing the previous reply. I'll look at it as well.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please give it a look now. Anything to be fixed yet?--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• "In the years thereafter, American scientists undoubtedly have synthesized the following elements up to mendelevium, element 101, in 1955." - "have synthesized" is in present perfect tense, I think it maybe should say "had synthesized" Chris857 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That was my recent edit [2]. Please do improve it, Chris857. -DePiep (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we stick to past simple since we have a particular date when the event occurred?--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, already the change from "coming" into "thereafter" may be enough, but I'm not sure.- DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll change it as I see fit; feel free to alter it thereafter.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

feel free to take a look--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• The lede says: "Limited investigation ... has demonstrated that dubnium behaves as a typical group 5 element and [as] the heavier homologue to tantalum;". Can we agree that adding the "as" grammatically helps? Without it, I understood it to say that tantalum is not a group 5 element. Also possible (to illustrate my point): add "especially". -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The point is, "a typical group 5 element and as the heavier homologue to tantalum" is sort of one statement rather than two. You can't really separate either from the other; when you say either "dubnium is a group 5 element" or "dubnium is eka-tantalum," the other is implied. That's why it reads to me naturally the way it currently is, though this is not something to fight over, I think. Give what I just said a good thought and if you still disagree, we'll work it out.--R8R (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• In Dubnium#Isotopes, no {{Infobox dubnium isotopes}} then? -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: Sorry I've been keeping you waiting. When I look at the article from my laptop, there is simply not enough room for an isobox. That's why I have not even considered it until now.--R8R (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• No comments left. - DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

• ^242mfAm— I have some background in chemistry, but I have no idea what the "mf" means. Perhaps a note?
  • Dropping by to say that it means a fission isomer; I'll look for a detailed explanation with a source. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • That's absolutely correct. I'll write it down soon.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Added a note. Since it is nothing more than nomenclature, I assume that no reference is needed (which is great given that I haven't seen anyone explain this rare notation, even though it is used only this way).--R8R (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• latter one— ="latter"
  • Of course.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• possibility of it being ²⁶⁰105 was not excluded—suggest possibility of ²⁶⁰105 was not excluded
  • That indeed sounds better, done.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• s orbitals (and p1/2 ones…—nothing linked here to help us with atomic orbitals, and "ones" is, again, redundant
  • I've added a wikilink to Atomic orbital. As for redundant "ones," I'd normally love to phrase it, "s (and p1/2) orbitals," but the parenthesized note goes on and I wouldn't want to break a phrase with such a long note in the middle.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Please check whether all uses of "however" and placeholder "one/ones" are necessary
  • I was able to remove most occasions of "howewer," bringing the count from 12 down to 3. As for "one," this is more difficult to me; I tried my best but still couldn't figure out how to do it in those few cases we have and if we should at all.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing else to add, all looks good, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources and refs in good order apart from a couple of minor issues:

• Inconsistency in providing retrieval dates. See, e.g. refs 7, 16, 23, 30, 33 possibly others.
  • Changed to a consistent mdy date format.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• In a couple of cases (18, 22) the titles given in the refs differ somewhat from what's in the source – in the case of 22 the source article isn't mentioned at all in the ref. These could create uncertainties as to whether the links are going to the right articles.
  • Fixed ref 18, added the missing article title for ref 22.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

All links seem to be working, and the sources themselves are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from John

For now, oppose on prose. The passive voice is way overused. There are other problems too. I will try to post a fuller review. --John (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I will try to go over prose for now and then seek help from other editors. I think we should be able to handle this quite quickly.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I am still eagerly awaiting your review, so please don't let the comment just above stop you from posting it.--R8R (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@John: May I ask you to go forward and bring in the promised review? In the meantime, prose has considerably improved thanks to Galobtter, so you may find some great improvements in that respect.--R8R (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking. I see the improvements, I had a go at further improvement, but I think I'd like one more pass before supporting. --John (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and as you know I'm not a fan of overdoing pronunciation guides. /ˈdʌbniəm/ (DUB-nee-əm) /ˈduːbniəm/ (DOOB-nee-əm) seems excessive. If it is important to record each of its pronunciations twice, they should at least be referenced. --John (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That I can do. I've added the required references.--R8R (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's looking better, prose-wise. I still think some bits could be better written. I was just looking at the Naming controversy section; it;s really confusing. --John (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This could be the case. But in what ways so?--R8R (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It's late at night and I have had a few beers. I apologise for the lackadaisical pace of my review. I'll try to give it some proper attention in the next days. --John (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Great to know, I'll be eagerly waiting.--R8R (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's take this paragraph for starters:

In 1994, IUPAC published a recommendation on naming the disputed elements following the previous reports. For element 105, they proposed the name joliotium (Jl), after the French physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie, a significant contributor to the development of nuclear physics and chemistry; this name was originally proposed by the Soviet team for element 102, which by then had long been called nobelium.[20] (The name nielsbohrium for element 107 was transformed to bohrium to conform with the practice set by all then-named elements.)[20] This recommendation paper was generally met with criticism from the American scientists: their recommendations were scrambled (the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were used for elements 106 and 108, respectively); both elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR despite earlier recognition of LBL as of an equal co-discoverer; and especially because the name seaborgium for element 106 was rejected for honoring a living person, a rule that had only just been approved.[21]

There must be some major improvements of organisation here; I know it's a complicated story, but if it needs to be told in detail here, it needs to be done in such a way that it explains clearly. I know the story going into reading it, and to me the current version makes the story less clear, not more. --John (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I would still love you to elaborate on this thought a little more. I actually don't see what exactly you stumble here on. What IUPAC suggested in 1994 was indeed only a set of recommendations which they assembled based on established priorities and suggestions by the competing teams, and those recommendations were criticized by the American scientists for a number of points they disagreed with. Is it not clear from the paragraph somehow? Is it something else that's unclear?--R8R (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The first question that arises for me is, do we need this level of detail on the wider naming disputes, on this article? --John (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I see where this is coming from. I was originally a little uneasy with such extensiveness of this section myself. However, I just haven't found a good way of saying less. If I tried something like, "In 1994, IUPAC suggested a set of names; for element 105, they chose joilotium. However, the Americans didn't like it so a new solution had to be found," it just left too many questions like "why that name?" and "why did the Americans not like it?" and after you fill in those blanks, there are more questions. What we have now is a wholesome story, which you can read without having your thoughts interrupted by various questions you get but don't see answers to from the text. So I'm going to say, yes, we do.--R8R (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I also find myself uneasy with the length of the section, but I likewise don't think there's a better way to deal with it. Consider: the American proposal for E105 was hahnium and the Soviet one was nielsbohrium. Unlike for all the other disputed cases, neither became the name of the element. So now the question is raised: if it's named dubnium now, honouring the Soviet team, then what happened to nielsbohrium? Well, it became E107 following discussions with the German team that discovered it. Okay, so where did these compromises come from? They came from IUPAC in 1994 and 1997. Why aren't the 1994 names the ones we use now? Because the American Chemical Society refused to use them in the face of protests from American scientists. But then we need to explain why they protested, and why they protested the next compromise as well, and while the scrambling of their E104 and E105 names and their replacement with the Soviet proposals had something to do with it, another major part was the loss of seaborgium for E106 (and then how it was ransomed later for all the other American proposals). I don't see anything in this paragraph that can be cut without losing part of the story. If anything I'd want to know more: why was E105 chosen for the compromise instead of E104? Some of it might be the political impossibility of naming an element after Kurchatov (the father of the Soviet atomic bomb), but it could have been dubnium as well (and in fact was in 1994). I think another possible explanation is that E104 was the American scientists' biggest quarrel with the TWG report, due to the lack of an isotope of E104 with the half-life claimed by the Soviets: at least with E105 the Americans acknowledged that the Soviets had produced the element as well, though (they insisted) only later. But I am most uncertain that we can find a source for this unless it happens to be in The Transuranium People. Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@John: I would really really appreciate more input from you here. I frankly cannot see what is so wrong with prose. Well, of course you may argue that I wrote most of it and thus am somewhat used to the writing anyway and that I'm not even a native speaker to begin with so I don't really count, and I'd say that's fair. But now the article has been copyedited and two native speakers have spoken in support specifically given the new prose quality. I genuinely do want to see what you dislike about the prose at the moment---I've gotten past the point where I just collect stickers and rather enjoy the writing itself (even given my mediocre literary skills)---so I could fix it or, more realistically, get someone to fix it. For that, however, I do need to see some exact complaints that can be addressed. The review has been open for over a month now, so I'd say it's the high time for that.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry about the glacial pace of progress here. I've suffered some family problems, see my talk for details. R8R, I love your writing even more than I love your modesty; I dread to think how I would do writing a professional-quality article in German, which would be my closest comparison. But there are still some problems. I appreciate the improvements in the prose but this particular section still isn't up to snuff. When JINR published their first report claiming synthesis of element 105, they did not propose a name for the new element, which was customary following a discovery of a new element. It starts off clunkily and just goes off from there. And I take your points that it's a complex and interesting story that needs to be told. But, here's the thing: while it's good for our non-science educated readers to realise that there are controversies and arguments among scientists over silly trivial stuff like what name to give an element, we fanatics are always liable to overestimate the interest the details of such a controversy are likely to be to non-fanatics. I will try to clean it up a bit, but honestly I am still leaning towards cutting this section extensively. However it is done This recommendation paper was generally met with criticism from the American scientists: their suggestions were scrambled (the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were used for elements 106 and 108, respectively); both elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR despite earlier recognition of LBL as of an equal co-discoverer; and especially because the name seaborgium for element 106 was rejected for honoring a living person, a rule that had only just been approved. is never going to be FA prose. --John (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have cut that sentence up to clarify things: now it reads This recommendation paper was criticised by the American scientists, for various reasons. Firstly, their suggestions were scrambled: the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were respectively reassigned to elements 106 and 108. Secondly, elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR, despite earlier recognition of LBL as an equal co-discoverer for both of them. Thirdly and most importantly, IUPAC rejected the name seaborgium for element 106, having just approved a rule that an element cannot be named to honor a living person, even though the 1993 report had given the LBL team the sole credit for its discovery. Actually, come to think of it, I think this slightly understates the level of criticism the 1994 recommendations faced, because the American Chemical Society went so far as to make the original American and German names (Rf, Ha, Sg, Ns, Hs, Mt) official for publishing in their journals in spite of IUPAC. Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have also changed the first sentence you mentioned to When JINR published their first report claiming synthesis of element 105, they did not propose a name for it, which was customary following a new discovery. Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

John, I am very sorry to hear about your problems. I feel a little sorry now for having had to ping you. From what I've read, it seems you have a positive attitude now, which is a great thing! I wish you all the best in your problem!

Let me make one thing clear: when you said, "this particular section still isn't up to snuff," did you mean the Naming controversy subsection or did you mean the entirety of the History section?--R8R (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, thank you very much for your kind words about my writing! I would have reacted sooner if I hadn't been so overwhelmed by your response in general. As for your concern about how naming is too minor a thing to build an extensive story upon, I'll note that I (again) had these concerns, too, so I totally understand you. However, I am put at ease by these three particular arguments: first, this particular conflict on how to name an element is not as minor a deal as it usually is (like with cassiopeium/lutetium etc.) because it is also a clash in a new kind of a technological race, which was further advanced by the geopolitical rivalry of their countries; so much so that the conflict even got a name and a Wikipedia article of its own. It is actually particularly notable historically speaking. Second, it is not like we are denying room for other sections by extending this one; there is really not too much known or even theorized data that we could present without going too far into details. This article isn't filled with data too densely anyway, so we can afford it. And third, I am certain that if we do succeed in getting a non-scientist readers' attention by something they can easily understand or even relate to, then maybe it will motivate some of them to read on and try to understand it. Have you noticed that all articles on superheavy elements start with History even though this is rarely the case for articles on stable elements?--R8R (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have wanted for a while to write about the cassiopeium/lutetium thing for lutetium. It was actually pretty wide-ranging and managed to create a set of warring names after having spilt over to celtium/hafnium, with such illustrious figures as Niels Bohr getting behind the cassiopeium campaign. ^_^ But we're off topic here! Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Over the past couple of days, I've tried to look into the text closely and I do think I've managed to improve the text in the subsection (presumably) in question quite a bit. Now I've asked for a comment from a native speaker whom I previously did not know, LichWizard, and they've told me the subsection was now good: the flow was fine and they were able to follow the story despite no background in the field. John, may I assume the section is actually fine now? I would really to hear from you.--R8R (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's looking better now; can you inspect my copyedits and other minor trims and tucks? I now support. --John (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the support and your help with prose. I've checked your edits; maybe there are a couple of things I would do differently but they'd be fine one way or another. Other than that, they were great as usual.--R8R (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments by Galobtter

So I was looking to improve the prose, and was checking to see what the source was saying, and I'm unable to find hydrofluoric acid mentioned in the pdf of the paper cited for the JAEA tandem accelarator. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much on willing to help with prose. As a non-native speaker, I'll gladly take any help I can get.

As for the question, here is the sentence that starts the part of the article I was referencing: "The anion-exchange behaviour of Db produced in the 248Cm(19F, 5n)262Db reaction at the JAEA tandem accelerator was investigated together with Nb, Ta, and Pa in mixed HF/HNO3 solution [26]." I hope this clarifies it.--R8R (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It was concluded that the available information that dubnium often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely as tantalum. I assume this is meant to be It was concluded from the available information that dubnium often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely as tantalum. or It was concluded that the available information showed that dubnium often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely as tantalum.? Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it must have been meant to be. Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I make mistakes sometimes, usually not because I don't know enough English but rather because I often get lost in thoughts while writing and don't watch too closely what I type down.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• The lead seems a little short. Could do with more detail rather than skimming over the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't like details in lead exactly because they seem out of place to me. I believe we should only draw the general picture here and it makes certain sense to me that there's less to say in this section for the superheavy elements than the stable ones (examples: hydrogen, oxygen, lead) because so little is actually known and even theorized. If there's anything big that we're missing, however, I'm always listening.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Their rivalry resulted in a race for new elements and credit of their discoveries, later named the Transfermium Wars. isn't actually cited there
  • I remember we are supposed to find refs for what is challenged or likely to be challenged. I just assume that this fact should be believable to everyone especially given that we actually have a blue link for "Transfermium Wars." It's not too difficult to get this cited, I just didn't see the point. If you insist, however, I may get this, too. Should I?--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• What is this trend that is expected to continue to the superheavy elements supposed to say? Wouldn't the trend already be shown, since the elements have been discovered? It isn't a grammatical clause either - is it supposed to be this trend is expected to continue to the superheavy elements?
  • As for grammar, yes (see note above). As for the statement itself, while we (the humanity) have synthesized some isotopes of the superheavy elements, we have not synthesized the heavier ones that are expected to be the most stable, not to mention the even heavier ones still to ensure those that we believe to be most stable now actually are most stable.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Then it should be this trend is expected to continue in new superheavy elements, shouldn't it? Actually, I think the paragraph can be rewritten to be a lot simpler explanation, that puts the most important and relevant fact first and the explanation later. Instead of

This is amplified by the trend of growth of the neutron-to-proton ratio of the most stable isotopes of an element with growth of the atomic number; this trend is expected to continue to the superheavy elements.[26] This complicates synthesis of the most stable isotopes as the isotopes in question will have more neutrons per proton than both the target and beam nuclei that could be employed.

have this, which is simpler, though can be improved as I'm a bit in a rush/tweaked if it is off from the source:

This is amplified by the fact that the most heavy, and expectedly stable, isotopes are the hardest to synthesize. Elements with a lower atomic number have stable isotopes with a lower neutron-to-proton ratio than those with higher atomic number, meaning that the target and beam nuclei that could be employed have less neutrons than needed to form these heavy isotopes.

Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• • • • Yeah, that's a great way to put it, except I'm a little surprised by that "most heavy." And, to point it out, there must be isotopes even heavier than the most stable ones, meaning that the most stable isotopes are not the heaviest isotopes possible but they are heavier than those we have observed so far (or at least that's the general trend with superheavy elements). But otherwise, yes, you got it.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Ah indeed the heaviest wouldn't the most stable; I put a modified version in, diff Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
          • @R8R: You might want to put in a mention of actinide transfer reactions as another way to reach these beta-stable nuclides (also in Zagrebaev), now that preliminary experiments have actually been done with promising results (the paper is on your talk page). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Thank you, that would be a good idea, actually. Will do in a few minutes.--R8R (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• dominate research in the area nowadays. isn't explicitly cited there and a date should be specified per MOS:CURRENT
  • You're right about that. Someone got to this before me, though.--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• These properties have remained challenging to measure: studies have only been performed on single atoms Would this be clearer/accurate as These properties have remained challenging to measure, as studies have only been performed on single atoms? Otherwise what's the connection? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Not quite. "As" appears equivalent to "because" in this context, as if the fact that studies have only been performed on single atoms was the reason for the properties to remain challenging to measure. Instead, the fact that the properties have remained challenging to measure is a fact of its own, and that studies have only been performed on single atoms rather goes a little deeper on that to illustrate that fact. I think a colon is right for that, but since it puzzled you, I guess we'd be better off rephrasing that. Any suggestions?--R8R (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • These properties have remained challenging to measure; studies have only been performed on single atoms semicolon is ok I think, I wonder if more explanation can be there e.g something like "These properties have remained challenging to measure; studies have only been performed on single atoms, not on the macroscopic scales required to observe deviating properties." - not sure if that's exactly true as I don't have the source, but something in that vein? ​ Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I've tried to explain that (and not deviate from the source) directly in the text, please feel free to ask any more questions if I wasn't clear enough. As for what you ask, yes, macroscopic scales would certainly be easier to test, but there is more to it.--R8R (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: you haven't responded in a while and I'd like to see your responses on some of the above. Also, I'd love you to help me out with prose a little more if that's possible. As for myself, I'll try to look closely into it more next week when I should have enough time for that.--R8R (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I responded to one above; I agree with some of your responses. Also a little busy :). Will get to the prose in a bit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Great to know :) I'll try to look closely at your response above tomorrow or at the beginning of the next week. Eagerly awaiting your prose corrections!--R8R (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• "the reaction producing heavier ²⁵⁸103 and ²⁵⁹103 was expected to produce no SF activity at all, falling in line with theoretical data" Didn't they do the tests, so why is it was expected? Wouldn't that expectation come from theoretical data?
  • That should be "the reaction producing heavier ²⁵⁸103 and ²⁵⁹103 produced no SF activity at all," I wasn't careful enough editing that sentence.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• "its sorption of dubnium" not 100% sure what "it" is
  • Good one, that should be just "sorption of dubnium" or something--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• "at lower concentrations of hydrogen chloride, small amounts of hydrogen fluoride were added to start selective re-extraction" is this a description of the previous extraction, or is it closer to after mixing with lower concentrations of hydrogen chloride, small amounts of hydrogen fluoride were added to start selective re-extraction? Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I checked what the source actually says on this and it turns out my wording is quite closer to its: "At lower concentrations of HCl, small amounts of added HF gave selective back extraction." Nevertheless, they seem to have formulated it more clearly than I did. Generally, I think you've nailed the point with your latter suggestion.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyediting efforts; these are actually very good. The text is indeed becoming better.--R8R (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I went through the article again, did some small edits, and have some last comments R8R:

• In May 1970, JINR published another report on element 105. The researchers then attempted another experiment to create it. I assume it is more like, JINR then attempted another experiment to create element 105, published in a report in May 1970. - researchers is slightly ambiguous and the phrasing is confusing
  • Yes, let's go with that.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think perhaps some stuff on predicted properties could be added to the lead, since so much is there in the body?
  • I am a little afraid to go into small details in the lead, but perhaps something could be added indeed. Let me think it though for a day. I'll ping you tomorrow when I have added something.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Galobtter: this is the best thing I could come up with. Does it look good for you? I am a little afraid to go further into details as they seem too minuscule for the lead section.--R8R (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Looks good Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• the heavier homolog to tantalum can this really specifically be said considering the experimental chemistry section says that often behaved like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely like tantalum. and that resembled niobium more closely than tantalumGalobtter (pingó mió) 04:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. This may seem a little at odds with the general periodic trends, but these trends are expected to be twisted for the superheavy elements because of relativistic effects anyway. This behavior dubnium exhibits is what computational chemists would expect (well, mostly) from the heavier homolog of tantalum.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I get the feeling that really explaining this in a way that gives the readers the right idea would involve expanding a bit on the chemistry of Nb and Ta. They are actually very similar and while it is interesting that Db follows Nb more often than Ta, the differences between the two are fairly small, so these are also small differences that we are talking about for Db. Even Pa is not terribly different from Nb and Ta, although that difference is greater. The 6d transition metals from Rf to Rg could be said to be unusual in the details but ordinary homologues of Hf to Au in their general behaviour; even Cn is not that far removed from Hg, though the distance is a little bit greater (mostly because Cn can use its d-electrons for chemistry whereas Hg cannot). The way this is being phrased now, to a reader who does not know heavy transition element chemistry very well, suggests rather the big differences of the 7p elements than the small ones of the 6d elements, and I think that that should be addressed somehow. Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't thank you more for your copyedit. I do see the improvements that I'm still unable to make, but able to enjoy, myself.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• SupportI've gone through it enough I reckon; looks good Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Double sharp

Reserving this for now; I'll probably have time to give these in a few days. I was originally going to comment about the prose, but Galobtter has helped to improve this a great deal! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Support: the prose has indeed improved greatly from when I last looked at this article, so that I am now comfortable with supporting. I'll look through my sources on transactinide chemistry to see if anything needs to be improved or added. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I could only second your comment re prose quality.

Yes, please, look through those and let me know if there's anything missing. I doubt there would be much but I am eager to stand corrected on this.--R8R (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The infobox mentions a predicted +4 oxidation state (cited) that is not mentioned in the body (unless this has something to do with the +4 species that occurred together with the +5 species assigned to Db in the 2004–5 chemical experiments). Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I just added a very simple mention following the source saying, "Thus, the most stable oxidation state of Db is expected to be 5+ and the 3+ and 4+ states are even less stable than in its lighter homolog Ta."--R8R (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a look and nothing else appears to be missing, so I'm happy to support without any more qualifications. Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this is nice to know :) --R8R (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

I would love to see all articles about the elements get to FA status one day. Unfortunately I am no scientist, so there is little I can do apart from providing my prose comments:

• I think the first sentence should contain that it is highly radioactive. Compare thorium
  • Yeah, radioactivity is a big topic with dubnium and I think it does deserve some accent on it. That was why I dedicated a whole second sentence of the article to it and I deliberately made the first paragraph of the lead so short so that the importance of its great radioactivity is not diminished. I think this is more of an accent than a slight mention in the first sentence.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• They ascribed the latter ... with theoretical predictions. --> too long
  • How exactly? The former phrase refers to an experimental result, while the latter (obviously) to a theoretical prediction.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend playing around with punctuation a bit. Something like this maybe: "They assigned the former activity to 242mfAm[a] and ascribed the latter activity to an isotope of element 105. They suggested that it was unlikely that the latter activity could come from a transfer reaction instead of element 105, because the yield ratio for this reaction was significantly lower than that of the 242mfAm-producing transfer reaction, in accordance with theoretical predictions." Edwininlondon (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see; you meant that the sentence was too long. I didn't get that initially. But yes, you were correct; I used your wording instead.--R8R (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• In the late 1960s and 1970s, tensions reduced somewhat. --> I don't understand why the 60s are mentioned. So far we've been going month by month in 1970. Later you have "In 1968". All this naming controversy timing needs a better set-up.
  • Good one. I've changed that bit.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• These names were accepted --> This reads a bit odd as the last name is the rejected seaborgium
• a Council meeting --> what council is this? This sentence also need a reference
  • That one sentence did not even describe the reality very correctly. I've changed that bit.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• IUPAC decided to allow the name seaborgium --> I feel by now we are straying quite far from the article's topic
  • I've tried my best there to explain just so much that the reader is not left puzzled with a missing detail. If we remove one detail, some questions will inevitably arise, so I keep it as it is. There are just too many connections between various details to omit any.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• have less neutrons --> fewer
  • Of course.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• These two are the heaviest isotopes --> any indication of how many isotopes there are total? And how unstable the others are?
  • This would be sort of filler information rather something actually useful. Unstable isotopes are of no particular (or maybe it would be correct to say, "too specialized") interest, so it doesn't really matter how many have been synthesized and how unstable they are; people in fact are interested in the stable isotopes.--R8R (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• of fusion for high atomic numbers. --> needs a reference
  • Reference added. Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I checked the one relevant book I have, Emsley's 2001 Nature's building blocks, and have few comments, which you are free to ignore since the book is 17 years old. It says this:

• it doesn't list dubnium in a-z order but puts it at the end with the other transfermium elements. Should transfermium not appear in the lead?
  • It is sort of arbitrary where to draw the line if you want to treat the last elements together. "Transfermium" means "after 100"; we use the term "synthetic," which does not say directly but hints, essentially, "after 94," and adds an additional characteristic to that. We could also use the term "superheavy," which usually means, "after 103." It would be good one way or another.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• there are 9 known isotopes
  • There are more now and this will be hard to keep up to date. Possibly we could mention that in the Isotopes section, but while I do this for the stable elements because it sort of feels like a good, even if not very informative, way to end the subsection, we have a better way to do so with the superheavy elements. This is, to be fair, not the most useful piece of information there is, as only some of these isotopes actually matter.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• atomic weight ranges from 255 to 263
  • The range is wider now--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• it has 1967 for first report of 260 isotope
  • To be exact, the experiment took place in 1967, but the report came out in 1968.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• it has Flerov as leading the Russian team
• and Ghiorso as leading the US team
  • I don't see a reason to focus on them. We do give them a mention where this becomes important, though: the attempt to solve the conflict around priority and naming of the new elements in 1975.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• first attempt to assess chemical behavior done by bombarding berkelium 249 with O18
  • Given that we're only writing an overview article, that would be a little too close a detail if you ask me.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Great work on an obscure element. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• • The 2011 edition of Nature's Building Blocks puts Db in the alphabetical order. I don't think the 2001 edition is necessarily a good guide because much of the research on such elements is recent and post-dates 2001: now there are 13 known isotopes (going past 263 to 270), but that's more of a figure detailing what we so far can produce than what is likely to be out there (there should be a lot more, and the list of those currently known contains a lot of gaps). As for seaborgium – the problem is that the whole controversy spilled over to all the other elements between 102 and 108, although it really only started being a problem with 104 and 105. As a result trying to keep the story to element 105 alone results in a lot of details that need explanation. Double sharp (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I, too, would love to see all element articles to become featured someday. There is not a single FA in this part of the periodic table yet, so I just went ahead and wrote an article on one element.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative. I just found the ultimate goal stated on WP:ELEM. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

With the caveat that I know little of science, I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And I assume most readers won't be scientists, either, so such input is very appreciated.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I was looking to promote this but I notice that two statements appear to be uncited: last sentence of Background and last sentence of second-last paragraph of Naming controversy -- pls review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I've added the refs. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for prompt response. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2018 (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) 15:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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