Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ununseptium/archive2

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2015 [1].

---

Ununseptium

Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a short article about a very rare substance that does not naturally exist; 15 atoms have been synthesized in total since 2010, all decaying away in less than a second. The article is short, yet quite complete. The subject is quite technical, but I hope the article is readable; some efforts have been applied to assure that. The previous FAC highlighted problems in prose quality; this article has been copyedited (and updated) since then, so it should be okay in that respect now. Your comments are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading the summary above revealed the interesting detail about the number of atoms that have been synthesized, which I had missed in a couple of read-throughs of the article. I have added this to the lede. YBG (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here we have the most recent element to be discovered. I am certain that the global criteria (1d, 1e, 3 and 4) are satisfied; the prose criteria are mostly OK, though I have some qualms with the weight given to the two major topics (while 2c follows from citation templates, 2b is satisfied if the naming section is subsumed into history and 2a seems questionable given the higher weight on history rather than characteristics in the lead, though I'll pass over this for now). Criteria 1abc I haven't looked over yet; I have made some unifying edits in the meantime. Parcly Taxel 03:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. Your edits have been good so far; thanks for them as well. Naming was a separate section mainly because that's how things are in ununoctium, which is an long-standing FA. In general, I agree it belongs with after-discovery recognition. Regarding weight on topics in the lead, I think the history part is just the right size, but we have little data about this element, and while I'd like to expand this part, it's hardly possible. I mentioned the relativistic effects and added one sentence on oxidation states, but there's nothing more to say. We have too little data on chemistry (so we can't add generalized info, and adding separate bits of info is, you know, going into detail, not the right thing for the lead), and about physics, the situation is basically the same (we could add a couple of figures, but that is just going into detail as well).--R8R (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "only eight atoms have been synthesized," I think this is inaccurate. The synthesis of 8 has been recorded and reported. In theory more were possibly synthesized but detectors didn't catch them.

  Fair enough. I went with "have been synthesized and reported."

• "The original experiment was repeated successfully in 2012" but 8 atoms were from 6 in 2010 and 2 in 2014. if it was successful why weren't any produced in 2012?

  A great one. Seven more atoms were produced in 2012.

• "The beam is made in Russia " shouldn't this be past, or "would have been made"?

  Sure, let's go with past.

• "The resulting nuclei become " there is something wrong with either the tense of the linking of this to the previous sentence

  I agree; I'll check the article history.

  I changed wording a bit; hopefully it's okay now.

• "target would no " => would have?

  I agree; as a side note, this sentence has always been phrased somewhat differently, this must be a recent change I missed

• "would remain " => would have remained?

  Same as above

• "the world's most powerful for the synthesis of superheavy elements" is this true?

  Actually, this statement is intended to mean, "world's most powerful as of the experiment", I'll use another wording.

  I think I originally saw this statement in the press release dedicated to the discovery, but I can't find it, so I removed it. The current source only says, "one of the most powerful."

• "matching their previous results" => how many new atoms did they get?

  Seven.

• side question: how much "weaker" is the Darmstadt accelerator?

  I don't exactly know, but I'll check that. I remember reading some plans from the Darmstadt team to get a still more powerful accelerator; maybe their 2014 experiment was conducted using it.

  I can't find an exact answer. I've found that the Dubna accelerator deals with energies within the range of 3–29 MeV/nucleon; I can't find the press release, I think it may have to do with total maximum energies rather than per-nucleon ones, but since it can't be made sure (for now, at least), we'll go without it.

• the chart image should clarify that known isotopes are those in framed squares

  Sure.

• can the eV scale be rotated vertically?

  Yes: File:Valence_atomic_energy_levels_for_At_and_Uus.svg. The image was originally vertically aligned, and the change for horizontal aligning came later. It was made because the original image is disturbingly long, so it may not even fit into screen if your monitor resolution is low (unless we consider low scale, but then labels would be hard to read). Not great, really.

It is an svg, so all it needs is scale all the text 3x and it will look ok. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I just updated the file. I doubled the font size; however, I am somewhat doubtful if a change from the current horizontal file to an update vertical one would be an improvement at all. However, if you wouldn't agree with me, feel free to make the change or just let me know.

• "The +7 state has not been shown—even computationally—to exist" if you put such atoms in very high fields you can ionize them beyond their valence electrons. I think the statement before should be fine-tuned a bit. Unless the ionization energy is so high that you break the nucleus apart (which should be way higher in energy imo) it does exist at least in theory

  Agreed.

• what is the ionic radius of Uus anion?

  Do you have an answer in mind? I generally agree this article could use more data, too bad so little is available at all. I'm sure that if I had seen a figure that important, I would've included it.

• the decay chart in inaccurate since it is missing the Lw-266 path

  I sincerely believe it's better to show just the decay chain we already have (so it could support the text, since it is located near the part on discovery), and change the caption to match the context. So I went with "Decay chain of the ununseptium nuclei produced in the original experiment."

Meah, it is fine but see File:Ununoctium-294_nuclear.svg for a model to include both if you change your mind. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact these isotopes are not really needed, such updates would need to be made each time someone synthesizes another isotope the original nuclides, Uus-293 and Uus-294, could decay to. Like, say, Mt-277, which was first synthesized in 2012 as a decay product of Uus-293. So, to make sure the article is correct, someone would need to keep track in news on superheavy isotopes, especially now that ununseptium news won't be as important as they used to (the element is not as new as it was in 2010 or 2014 anymore). Sure, I get it we would need to keep track on news on whether the 2012 Dubna application is recognized by IUPAC or not, because it's an important part of the story for the element. The exact end of the alpha decay chain isn't.

Nergaal (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Great comments, thanks for taking your time. I'll try to reply to them sometime soon, hopefully tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by TIAYN

• IUPAC is mentioned six times throughout the article, and IUPAP once, but only in abbreviated form.... What about International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)/International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Joint Working Party, or alternately the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics?

  That's true; I went with "the Joint Working Party (JWP) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics"

• What about removing "so" in ""Once it is so recognized".. "Once it is recognized" reads easier, and "so" doesn't contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence.

  Sure, why not

• "The Russian team desired to use berkelium"—while its not grammatically incorrect, desire is an emotional term. You can desire someone emotionally.. It seem strange to desire to use berkelium; what about "The Russian team sought to use berkelium"?

  A good one, changed to "sought"

• "After this period, half of the target would have no longer been berkelium"... "would have no longer been berkelium" seems awkward, but since I don't know anything about this, that might be the best way to explain it?

  The idea is, each type of radioactive (IOW, decaying over time) atoms has a period called "half-life", after which one half of those atoms would decay and therefore no longer be the type of atoms they used to be. (After a second half-life, a half of the remaining half decays away, so only a half of the remaining half---one quarter---is left, and so on.) If you think there's a way to rephrase this, I'm open for suggestions

  • What about, "After the given period, half of the targeted berkelium would have decayed"? --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Yeah, I used that.

• "As of 2015, no official permanent name has been suggested for ununseptium" -> As of 2015, no official name has been suggested for ununseptium or As of 2015, no permanent name has been given for ununseptium

  I used the first suggestion

• You explain island of stability twice.. First as " island of stability, a concept wherein some super-heavy atoms can be relatively stable" and then "This concept, proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, explains why superheavy elements last longer than predicted"... One would suffice...

  Agreed; I introduced the term to the lead and focused the explanation on the second section. Thanks for bringing my attention to this

• "Ununseptium is the second-heaviest element of all created so" -> Ununseptium is the second-heaviest element created so far

  Agreed

• "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move much more quickly" — why use "especially"?

  The effect discussed in this sentence does occur for other elements, and it becomes stronger as atoms become heavier. It could be said these effects are strong for the heavy elements (as opposed to the "superheavy" elements, like the one this article is about), such as lead or mercury, because they affect their properties (for example, this is the ultimate reason why gold is yellow or mercury is liquid); they are supposed to affect the superheavy atoms even stronger. In general, this is the reason why some properties/actions have a degree in the text, while they wouldn't have one in most other situations

  • • OK... Reword from "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move much more quickly" ->The superheavy elements are especially strong because their electrons move much quicker". ... The sentence is grammatically incorrect... I would also like to remove "much".. Its a filler word, and really, since as a reader you don't inform how much quicker it is, quicker would suffice. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

      I see your point regarding "much." As for "quick," I just consulted a dictionary, it suggests "faster" should be better, so it becomes "because their electrons move faster."

• You still have not fixed the sentence, it still reads "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons"; that is grammatically incorrect. Should be "The superheavy elements are especially strong because their electrons move much faster"... --TIAYN (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  I need to make it clear: it's not about the elements being strong, it's about the effect being strong. Here's the sentence in context: "Significant differences are likely to arise; a large contributor to the effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin. It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move faster—at velocities comparable to the speed of light—than those in lighter atoms." I would say it is quite clear the "it" in the beginning of the second sentence refers to the SO interaction; if you disagree, please suggest a way to rephrase this.

• • • • What about; Since their electrons move faster (moving at a velocity "comparable to the speed of light"), the electrons in superheavy elements are more powerful than those in lighter atoms" or Since their electrons move faster (moving at a velocity "comparable to the speed of light"), the superheavy elements are more powerful than those in lighter atoms. OK? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

        Nobody refers to the elements or electrons as "powerful," and I don't even think that's what you could read from my original wording... I tried, however, to prevent anyone from making the mistake, trying, "a large contributor to the effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin. The SO interaction is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move faster..."

• "Because the 7s electrons are very stabilized, it has been hypothesized that ununseptium has only five valence electrons" -> "Because the 7s electrons are stable, it has been hypothesized that ununseptium has only five valence electrons"

  I'm somewhat reluctant to make this change. This is not some binary "stable/unstable" we're talking about (unlike, say, atoms: they may be either stable or unstable/radioactive, although the latter term also allows some differentiation based on how quickly they decay); moreover, this is a theory (as you can see from the title "Predicted properties"), it matches the current data and is totally believable by current measures, but no one has actually checked if that's true because no one can at the moment (although some want), and "are stable" seems somewhat even less tolerant to objections that the current line. Not to mention it was explained just before this sentence what might've stabilized the electrons in question.

  • • Fine, but "very" doesn't sound scholarly at all. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

      Well, you're right. "Greatly" should be better?

      • it still prefer using none, but fine.

• "This molecule is significantly stabilized by the SO interactions" -> This molecule is stabilized by the SO interactions

  Again, I wouldn't move to the binary "stabilized/not stabilized" because this effect exists even for much lighter atoms to a much smaller degree, and there is some difference between those cases

• What's an SO interaction?

  At the moment, we have "the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin," and I'm afraid to go deeper into this, because this may scare readers away and could actually be a little off-topic here

• Notes a, b & c are not referenced.
• :I wonder why the unreferenced note d is okay with you :) But there is a reason. This is not the first time I'm asked to provide references for phrases like this. But the problem is, it is very difficult; as you can read from those notes, they're not discussing some facts (unlike the note e, which is referenced), they're discussing some nomenclature, they explain what some complex terms/symbols mean. One by one:

  • a: says two terms do not denote the same set of elements by definition. This one is difficult to cite; I've tried this before and didn't succeed. Give me a couple of days to see if this is doable.

    I have finally found the kind of info I wanted, so I added a ref.

  • b: some readers may not understand these reaction equations, so an explanation how to read those is provided. I argue no ref is needed. The reference for equations themselves is provided.
  • c: this note is just explaining what the ns2np5 construct even means. However, it's good you brought my attention to this; I just added a reference for the formula itself.
  • d: this note is explaining (very briefly, because that would be a long and somewhat off-topic text if it were to be completely explained) the concept of the azimuthal quantum number. I argue no ref is needed. The fact this note is helping explain is referenced.

  • What I don't get is, lets take note b, you say its referenced by ref 10, but why don't you include ref 10 in the note?

    I'll try to explain the idea behind this, but have in mind I don't pretend to be a qualified expert at this (so if you're reading this and saying, "Well, then you're certainly using ref placing wrong!", I won't argue).

    Suppose we have a quote from, say, Henry VIII, and we list it. We provide a reference, but then we realize English was quite different back then from Modern English, and not all readers may be able to understand it or it's just too hard, and we're providing an translation into Modern English in a note. This is basically the same thing: those equations are the information we're discussing, but since we may expect not all readers will be able to read them, a note is providing info on how to read these lines. I didn't add the ref to the note because that information is just common knowledge in the area. It is not directly supported by the ref; just everyone who works with this is super common with this, they even teach this at schools. I mention this because not everyone remembers what they were taught at schools (including myself in some other subjects).--R8R (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the article's content, it seems good (but I don't know, this isn't exactly my field of expertise). --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall, its a good article—I've learnt something new by reading.. I'll take a second look at it tomorrow (or Saturday–depends when I have time) to make sure I didn't miss anything... --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, that's exactly the kind of reaction I wanted to get from a reader not all that familiar with atomic physics or chemistry :) --R8R (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, other problems pilled up.

• Using the term "original experiment" alot in the lead. How about spicing up the language?

  Yeah... better now?

  • Good; not a huge thing, but ending a sentence with "experiment" and beginning the next with "The experiment" makes the text less fun to read. While the text is important, good writing is why people bother to write in the first place... But no biggy--TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• The discovery of ununseptium was first announced in 2010; synthesis was claimed in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration, making it the most recently discovered element as of 2015. → "The discovery of ununseptium was first announced in 2010; synthesis was claimed in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration. As of 2015, it is the most recent discovered element."?

  I think this would kind of break the chronology. "Ununseptium was synthesized in 2010. It is the most recent as of 2015. One of its daughters was created directly in 2011. The synthesis was repeated in 2012 and 2014. No comment on recognition by IUPAC as of 2015." The current wording isn't perfect either, so I tried to follow the hronology of the events we cite; should be OK?

  • It does not make sense; "It is the most recent as of 2015"? I know what you mean, but other won't.... What about: Ununseptium was synthesized in 2010 and, as of 2015, is the most recent discovered element. One of its daughters was created in 2011. The synthesis was repeated in 2012 and 2014. IUPAC has not recognized it as of 2015... OK?

    I tried to do this

• "Once it is recognized, the discoverers will receive the right to give the element a permanent name" → "If recognized, the discoveres will be empowered to give the element an official name (ununseptium" is a temporary systematic element name)?"

  I can agree on the wording thing, but I don't want to parenthesize the part regarding the current name... it's important to explain where the current name came from, too important for parentheses

  • What about; If recognized, the discoveres will be empowered to give the element an official name. Ununseptium is a temporary name.

    I don't want to hide the link to "systematic element name" under just "temporary name," because it might be unclear otherwise where the link leads to (concept of temporary names in general, or just superheavies-related ones?) However, I changed the punctuation a bit to match your suggestion

• You explain Island of Stability both in the lead, and the body... What about just the lead, or the first place its mentioned in the body?

  I've always held the lead for comparably separate from the rest of the article (a reader may either skip the lead, if they're going to read the whole thing anyway, or skip the body, if they just need to get the basic idea of what the article is about), so I give a super short description in the lead section (which could have easily been skipped if the term was self-descriptive, like Ministry of Supervision), and then go into detail in the part of the article where the whole concept of stability of the element is discussed in detail.

  • I agree somewhat, but if you're going to summarise in the lead you should dumb it down by not mentioning the island of stability but rather explain it without mentioning the concept (if that made sense). --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    I think this and the next comments are somewhat contradictory to each other :( please clarify to me (I tried to address the next comment, though). And why shouldn't we mention the concept, one of the basic concepts used in research on superheavy elements

• "Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept in which some superheavy elements may be more stable than expected otherwise; the synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds. " → Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept which tries to explain why some superheavy elements are more stable than expected. The synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds

  I think it's okay for colloquial speech, but in a serious text, I wouldn't say a concept tries to do anything. And I think it's great we use a semicolon, because the two facts ("ununseptium may be located in the island of stability" and "the synthesized atoms have lasted tens and hundreds of microseconds") are super-closely related; the Dubna team believes these results serve as definite proof of the existence of the "island of stability," as we say in a caption to a picture

  • What about Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept that explains why some superheavy elements are more stable than expected. The synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds..OKish? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    I tried it; not yet sure if dropping the semicolon is right, but I agree on the new suggestion otherwise

• Unlike the halogens, ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states → Unlike halogens, ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states

  Why? We did mention the word "halogens" just a sentence ago, and it's a small finite set of elements.

  • No biggy, fine. --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• In 2004, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, proposed an experiment to synthesize element 117—so-called for the 117 protons in its nucleus—that required fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam. .... Did the JINR propose a joint experiment with ORNL? It could easily be mentioned here.

  Yeah, a great suggestion, added.

  • What about "In 2004, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, proposed a joint experiment with the American Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to synthesize element 117—so-called for the 117 protons in its nucleus—that required fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam...?

    Done (except I didn't neglect the ORNL's hometown)

• However, the team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in the United States—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not then provide any, citing a lack of production of the exotic material → However, the American team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not provide it, claiming they hadn't produced enough. ... The last sentence is also awkward, but at least I understand it...

  see below

• "The Russian team sought to use berkelium—an element they could not access—because calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons; it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such a neutron excess." → The Russian team sought to use berkelium since calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons; it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such neutron excess" ... You've already stated that the Americans were unwilling to send berkelium to the Russians...

  A reader might ask, "Then why wouldn't they try some other reaction with an element they could access?" I'm trying to emphasize the importance of calcium-48 by this.

  • But you still don't need "an element they could not access" in it for you to emphasize its importance... --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Okay, sure

• "Thanks to neutron excess, resulting nuclei became heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability." → Due to neutron excess, resulting nuclei became heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability, (explain it here maybe?)"

  I never actually had the idea. A great suggestion, I'll try to do that after I'm done with the other points.

  I gave it a try, I hope I made it understandable (although you might have ideas on how to improve prose).

• Suddenly you write "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team".. So with this "citing a lack of production of the exotic material" you were trying to say that However, the American team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not provide it, stating they had temporarily ceased production."?

  That'll do. Also, I added the town the ORNL is located in to the sentence.

• "The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days and in another 90 days was chemically purified" → They cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.

  I won't fight for this to death (so if you still disagree, I'll easily follow; actually, this is true for many points I meet with some initial doubt), but this seems somewhat illogical. If we make the change, the fragment would be "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team.[5] The production resulted in 22 milligrams of berkelium; enough to perform the experiment.[12] They cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.[13]" That "they" seems to be somewhat far away from defining what the pronoun means.

  • What about: "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team.[5] The production resulted in 22 milligrams of berkelium; enough to perform the experiment.[12] The Russians cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.[13]" ... Use Russians, and not Russian team—spice up the language.. --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    The cooling and the purifying both happened in the U.S. (I think this is clear from the text and the order of events we list), so it would have to be "In 2008, the American team resumed production of berkelium;[1] they produced 22 milligrams of berkelium, enough to perform the experiment.[2] The Americans cooled the berkelium for 90 days and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.[3]" Doesn't sound all that great to me (but if you say it's okay, I won't resist)

• The berkelium target had to be quickly transported to Russia because the half-life of berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced, is only 330 days.. → The berkelium had to be transported to Russia as quickly as possible, since the half-life of berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced, is 330 days.... What does ", the isotope of berkelium produced" mean? Are you saying that the berkelium produced isotopes have a half-life of 330 days?

  All isotopes of an element are named by the name of the element, followed by its mass number separated by a hyphen. "Berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced" means "berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium that was produced," but that just seemed to be too wordy to me. I'll try "berkelium-249, the produced isotope of berkelium," it should be clear?

• "If the experiment had not begun within six months of the target's departure, insufficient quantities of the quickly decaying berkelium would have remained for the experiment" → For the experiment to succeed, it had to begin within six months of its departure from the United States since to much of the berkelium would have decayed during the given period."

  Done

• Despite advanced preparation for the journey, Russian customs officials twice refused to let the target enter the country because of missing or incomplete paperwork. → Despite preparing the journey in advance, Russian custom officials refused the target to enter the country twice because of missing or incomplete paperwork."

  Agreed, done

  • You haven't actually done it. --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Come to think of that, the suggested version sounds like the customs officials were the subject of preparing for the journey; that wasn't the case

• The target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times over a few days → Over the span of a few days, the target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times... Why?

  Done.

  If I correctly understand the question "Why?", then here's the deal. The target was first transported to Russia (first travel over the Atlantic Ocean), then in a Moscow airport, Russian customs didn't permit the target's entrance into the country because of bureaucracy, so it had to fly back to New York (second), the scientists worked on documents so this would not happen a second time, and gave it a second try (third), Russian customs again didn't allow the target to enter the country, and it had to fly back again (fourth), then in NY, scientists worked on documents again and gave it a third try (fifth), and finally the customs were documents were okay with documents, and the target was successfully imported into Russia. (If I got it wrong, please, specify the question.)

  • Shouldn't this be included in the text? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    I'd say no, it's a really minor thing, it's not all that important for understanding the text in general

• On its arrival in Russia, the berkelium was transferred to Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, to be fixed on a thin titanium film → On its arrival, the berkelium was transferred to Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, to be fixed on a thin titanium film.... I don't understand what "fixed on a thin titanium film" is, care to explain in the text?

  I tried to do so in the body

  • But this is the first and only place in the article you mention thin titanium film... --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    I wish I knew how to rephrase this, but I don't understand what the problem even is :( The thin titanium film is a thin layer of titanium, if that was the question, and "film" is used to avoid the layer--layer repetition

• It then went to Dubna where it was installed in the JINR particle accelerator... Its not a mammal, it can't move... → From there it was transported to Dubna where it was installed in the JINR particle accelerator.

  Ha ha, you're right! Except I used "It was then transported to Dubna..." because "from there" seems to be a somewhat redundant phrase to me

• "On April 9, 2010, an official report was released in the journal Physical Review Letters identifying the isotopes as 294Uus and 293Uus, which were shown to have half-lives of order of tens or hundreds of microseconds, formed as follows" → On April 9, 2010, a report by the journal Physical Review Letters identified the isotopes as 294Uus and 293Uus, which were shown to have half-lives of order of tens or hundreds of microseconds. They were formed as follows

  Agreed.

  • You havn't actually done it yet. --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Again, a second thought made me rethink this... the report was published by the journal, but it was authored by the discoverers, and the journal recognized they were the authors and did not try to be the author instead

• All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown,[11] so their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery → All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown,[11] therefore their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery.

  Yeah, I agree.

• In 2011, when one of the decay products (ununpentium-289) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium → In 2011, when one of the decayed products (ununpentium-289) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium"... I'm not sure what you mean about "its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium"...

  The thing is, after they synthesized ununseptium in 2010, ununseptium-293 decayed to form ununpentium-289 (which was not known at the time as well), and after ununpentium-289 decayed, the scientists were able to measure some of its decay properties (how long ununpentium lasted, type of the decay, amount of energy released after the decay, etc.). After they created ununpentium-289 directly in 2011 and then it decayed, its decay properties matched those measured in 2010. I don't know how to reword this, I thought it was clear; please make some suggestions.

  • But the suggestion is workable? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Not exactly, "decay product" is an actual term (which means, as you might guess, "product of a decay")

• "The discoverers did not submit a claim for the discovery of ununseptium in 2007–2011 when JWP was reviewing claims of discoveries of trans-copernicium elements (elements with atomic numbers greater than that of copernicium)." ... You really like the word discover, don't you? .. Let's try: "The discoverers of ununseptium did not submit a claim for their findings in 2007–2011 when JWP was reviewing claims of discoveries of trans-copernicium elements (elements with atomic numbers greater than that of copernicium)." It still one discover to many, but better..

  Agreed

• The Dubna team successfully repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of ununseptium. The results of the experiment matched the previous results;[17] the scientists have since filed a new element registration paper → The Dubna team successfully repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of ununseptium. The results matched the previous outcome;[17] the scientists have since filed a new element registration paper... What are " a new element registration paper"?

  Good one, thanks. The paper is a formal paper for the IUPAC, in which the authors declare they've synthesized a new element, try to prove the results they got could not mean anything else, and appeal to the committee in order to get recognized as the discoverers.

  • What about a note which defines "registration papers"? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    I think we'll be better off by just using better wordings, like what I tried to do in this case. "filed an application to register the element" -- hopefully this is clear?

• On May 2, 2014, a joint German-American collaboration of scientists from the ORNL and the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery → On May 2, 2014, a joint collaboration by the American ORNL and the German GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery

  I think it would be somewhat unfair to neglect the GSI location, because we mention the locations of both Russian and American institutes, and because "Darmstadt" is often used as a specifier for GSI in the field, similarly to how "Dubna" is used as a specifier for JINR.

  • What about; On May 2, 2014, a joint collaboration by the American ORNL and the German GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research (in Darmstadt, Germany) claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery? --TIAYN (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Why? We have referred to the ORNL as "the American team" a couple of times before this sentence, it's surely clear (besides, "German GSI (in Darmstadt, Germany)"?)

• As of 2015, no official name has been suggested for ununseptium → As of 2015, no official name has been given for ununseptium
• :Suggesting a name to be used as official is not equivalent to establishing it as such, and the two may be separated by years; for example, there are suggested names for ununtrium, none of which is official, and there were the so-called Transfermium Wars, which was a long-lasting debate between American, Soviet, and German physicists on who synthesized some elements first and, therefore, how they should be named.

  • OK.

• According to IUPAC's current guidelines, the permanent names of all new elements should end in "-ium"; this includes ununseptium, even if the element is a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine → According to IUPAC's current guidelines, the names of all new elements should end in "-ium"; this includes ununseptium, even if the element is a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine

  Sure

  • I'll take a look at the "Predicted properties" section when you're finished with this. Regards, --TIAYN (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- sorry but this has been open well over six week without approaching consensus for promotion, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 06:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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