Talk:Seaborgium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:27, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 07:20, 25 June 2005).

Pronunciation

Dorky question: The name Seaborg ends in a hard G, but usually a G followed by and I is a soft G (like a J). I've always wondered, is the element pronounced as Seabor(hard G)ium, or Seabor(soft G)ium? Is either pronunciation acceptable? EDIT yes both are acceptable... considering most of the facts about this element are unknown

Seaborgium is pronounced with a hard G in order to firmly indicate the association with seaborg. Listen to the audio file for pronunciation.--Drjezza (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Article

I've just read it, and I think its great, has anyone considered giving it a good article nomination? --Pstanton (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the ugliest article I've ever seen, but it looks extremely comprehensive. Nice work :) 203.206.252.243 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional humour :)

"...and a survey indicated that chemists were not concerned with the fact that Seaborg was still alive."

Presumably Seaborg himself *was* concerned with the fact though. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.122.194 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Properties (especially melting point)

What are predicted melting and boiling points for Sg and nearby elements (such s Db, Bh, Hs, Mt)? Will melting points be higher than 3500 C? What with hardness? Will it be higher than hardness of diamond? 178.42.151.221 (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are my predictions for melting point and crystal structure, from extrapolation and qualitatively considering relativistic effects. I don't think the hardnesses will be harder than diamond's, though it will get very close (would say around 10.0 for Sg and 9.5 for Hs). The 7d transition metals might be able to go up to around Mohs 12.0, though this is much more OR. Double sharp (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Half-Life

There is conflicting data about half-lives in the article itself: In the introduction there is "most stable isotope 271Sg has a half-life of 2.4 minutes" and in the "Isotopes" section there is "longest-lived isotope is 269Sg [...] has a half-life of 22 s". The latter data seems to be outdated.

IAEA says that the isotope 272Sg has got a half-life of 1 hour, but I don't know what the italic remark "SY" means on IAEA's site. Icek 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SY there means the value is theoretically derived from systematic trends and has not been verified experimentally. See also isotopes of seaborgium and talk:isotopes of seaborgium for some reference data. Much of the isotope-related text in the articles dates back to when these pages weren't available, you're right that someone should update it. Femto 15:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem has been fixed - thanks for spotting it! Walkerma 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It might just as well be 272 but it's unconfirmed. With inconclusive data like this the article should avoid definite statements like "the most stable" or "longest". Femto 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

sg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.203.140 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The most stable is actually ²⁶⁹Sg, half-life 2.1 min. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll find here a less stable data. Jacques Ovion aka 82.224.88.52 (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cold Fusion!

"The proton-rich isotopes from 258 to 261 were directly produced by cold fusion; "

......Really? I dont know enough about physics to know if this is true or not, but only enough to eye anything with the words cold fusion with deepest scepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.164 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Really. This is a standard term in the field and no, it does not have anything to do with the nonsense of Fleischmann and Pons. I've copied two paragraphs over from isotopes of rutherfordium to explain this. The "cold" refers to the low excitation energies of the resultant compound nuclei, so that they emit neutrons instead of fissioning. Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry

http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002fract.1997.77.issue-3$002fract.1997.77.3.149$002fract.1997.77.3.149.pdf/ract.1997.77.3.149.pdf?t:ac=j$002fract.1997.77.issue-3$002fract.1997.77.3.149$002fract.1997.77.3.149.xml Double sharp (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Isotopes table

I question reliability of its sources. I can't find half-lives in the second source. The first source is outdated, as I've seen from half-lives on 268Db (info there given as of 2005) and 270Db (as 2010). Fresher info is available in both cases< dating from 2006 (!) and 2014, correspondingly.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Half-lives are here from the second source. Do you know where I can get less outdated info? Double sharp (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know a better source and I have my doubts if it exists. The only places I'd have any hope for are the sites associated with Berkeley, Dubna, Knoxville, Darmstadt, etc. I'd check there (and I will later if you won't have found it by the moment I get free time on my hands).

Also, a link for self: [1]. Also I have to check this thing later: [2]--R8R (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe Emsley here. He contradicts himself on whether ²⁶⁹Db is known or not. He's also not exactly known for being accurate – remember the saga on natural Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf? Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Note I put a link next to it to a scientific document that ckaims to talk about that nuclide. It's currently downloading on my laptop at home; I'll check it late in the evening and see what it's got.--R8R (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

They are the same link?! Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I made a mistake here. Anyway, you know there is a file to talk about. I'll read it when I'm home.--R8R (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The book has predicted data only, unfortunately. OTOH, we could find some uses for that biiiiiiig database.--R8R (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Might be too technical but I suppose that is an unavoidable issue with this subject. I will have to read through it a few more times to figure out if this is something that needs to be corrected. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

   I read it through - very slowly - and, actually, when I take my time the prose is very clear. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   There are several issues with the references:

   • Ref #15 requires an http log-in and is inaccessible to most readers. It will have to be marked with the appropriate template (perhaps 'Subscription required")

   •  Done. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   • Ref #16 is unknown/dead.

   • Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Double sharp: Unless I'm missing something the Ref #16 linkage ("Physico-chemical characterization of seaborgium as oxide hydroxide"/website: www-w2k.gsi.de is still there and it is still dead/unknown. This needs to be corrected before I can sign off on this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   Strangely that shows up as ref #17 for me; I didn't notice the discrepancy because ref #16 was also broken, coincidentally! (I suppose some of this might be because of the six-month wait for the review; IIRC the links were working when I wrote the article.) Anyway, I've replaced it with an archived copy from the Wayback Machine. Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   References are now good to go - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   • The two RSC links in External links are dead.

   • Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   The above issues will need to be fixed before I can proceed with this Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   The copyvio tool found commonality with elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sym=sg and vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Sg but that is because of the use of clearly-quoted material in the WP article. I am satisfied that this is not a cause for concern. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It is a s broad and detailed as it needs to be.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   The photo of Seaborg needs a US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

   I've replaced it with another photo which is definitely public domain in the USA (and with a periodic table in the background ^_^)! Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

   I like this one so much better - shows the man in context of his area of notability. Well-done! Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Everything looks good, am doing one final proofreading-readthrough, should now be able to finish within a day or two. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Readthroughs

I will have to go through the article a couple of times to make sure I haven't missed anything and to finish assessing it on Criteria 1A. Since this subject is nowhere near my areas of expertise this allmight take me some time, but, pending finding any new issues, I should be able to finish my Review within the week. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Only element to be named after a living person?

How about Einsteinium, discovered in 1952, while Einstein died in 1955? (Since there was a "Do not edit" note in the wikitext, I'm directed to this page.)

Go-in (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The name einsteinium was not announced until after Einstein's death in 1955, because the initial discovery was in the aftermath of the Ivy Mike nuclear test and hence was classified for three years. But you have a good point about this (we don't know when the name einsteinium was decided on), so I have changed it to "the first and so far only element to be named after a person who was alive when the name was announced". Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Oganesson is also named after a living person, Yuri Oganessian Porygon-Z 23:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but in August 2016 when this discussion took place, the name oganesson was not yet official. Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well now it is. So could you please fix it?Porygon-Z 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

No, the talk page comments should stand as they were originally written; the timestamps should provide enough clarification. As for the article, oganesson is already mentioned in the lede. Double sharp (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, I would have made it a bit clearer. Porygon-Z 16:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Compounds

Aren´t there compounds of seaborgium? Are there other superheavy compounds? Please clarify! Porygon-Z 16:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Many Sg compounds are predicted to exist (by extrapolating the properties of tungsten if nothing else), but only a few have been synthesized so far. This is so for other superheavy elements as well. ComplexRational (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Like what? Porygon-Z 14:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

See Seaborgium#Chemical. Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The difference between should form, will from, and does form is too similar in the article. Could you make it a bit clearer please? Porygon-Z 02:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It says should form way to much. Maybe you can categorize it into the 3 forms? Porygon-Z (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)