Talk:Hassium/R8R review

How to make this article awesome

Seriously, we can write an awesome article. Like, look at ununseptium. It doesn't have a star, but it's pretty cool anyway.

To write something as good, some work will actually be needed.

All I can write is emotions based on a single read now echoed by some more in January. But there's much to see if you look.

Link: Hassium

History

Official discovery

Have a look at ununseptium. And here again. History is, like, the most gettable and thus the most interesting aspect of the whole hassium story for those who aren't really amazingly good at nuclear physics (me included) and chemistry. We can write here some brilliant prose, engaging the reader to go on. Also that's the reason why History is the first section in the ununseptium. There's gotta be pre-history, which can and should be described like a good story.

I mean, just think. There's a lot of stuff that sucks in English Wiki. And I don't care for the not-to-be-seen parts like Wikivotes, Wikijudges, etc., for me, only the way the texts read is what matters despite my inability to write a grammatically correct text. Like, DYK is shit. Seriously. Most of text contain no puns.

DYK:

"Did you know that the architecture of the Church of St. Wenceslaus (pictured) in New Prague, Minnesota, is based on a church in Prague, Czech Republic?"

You're not saying.

A church in a town which has been founded by Czechs from Prague (as the name tells) looks like a church in actual Prague.

No way. You're kidding me.

If there's a lotta user-unfriendly stuff around, there should be now fear to make something good anyway. Otherwise, everything DYK will be telling us is, "Ray Duncan established both the Durango Mountain "Purgatory" Ski Resort and the Silver Oak Cellars wine business?" "that dude Ray Duncan started two quite different businesses."

(For comparison, Russian DYK is better because it's engaging, even when it's about East Asia (I don't usually care fore it). Probably the only thing that's better in Russian Wiki than in the English one, though. A part of the secret is longer renewal times. Not everything can make a pun, those who accept Czech-American churches should know it. But I'm so off the point now)

Go for people's love. And don't be lazy. Remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm saying it 'cause there are some changes I'm offering to you, which are in line with what I think of as "perfect." Don't be scared to explain stuff to your reader.

Depending on the energies involved, the former are separated into "hot" and "cold". In hot fusion reactions, very light, high-energy projectiles are accelerated toward very heavy targets (actinides), giving rise to compound nuclei at high excitation energy (~40–50 MeV) that may either fission or evaporate several (3 to 5) neutrons.[13] In cold fusion reactions, the produced fused nuclei have a relatively low excitation energy (~10–20 MeV), which decreases the probability that these products will undergo fission reactions. As the fused nuclei cool to the ground state, they require emission of only one or two neutrons, and thus, allows for the generation of more neutron-rich products.[12] The latter is a distinct concept from that of where nuclear fusion claimed to be achieved at room temperature conditions (see cold fusion).[14]

This para is very good.

There will be points in this article where we could need some text like this, and I will show them to you later on.

There are two ideas to try: 1) just add the intro info into everywhere we need it and 2) write a section similar in organization (but not necessarily in ideas given therein) to Complex number#Overview to Introduction to quantum mechanics, but maybe not a whole article and just a section. Maybe we'll need a whole article, but I don't know for sure. Either option is fine, but the separate section also can focus on more things, and then can be copied into other articles, and, like, why not try new?

Ununseptium is good (I don't even want to change it, only prose check maybe), but we can do better. User-friendlier.

Instead, the third line already is scaring away our readers: :²⁰⁸
₈₂Pb
+ ⁵⁸
₂₆Fe
→ ²⁶⁵
₁₀₈Hs
+
n
.

Summarizing stuff only about this subsection: needs more drama, needs more explanation. Also, wasn't there some spirit of the Germans being like, "Hey Soviets! We can beat you and make these hot elements before you do! And America, gosh, start doing things again"? Would be neater if there was some international fighting over this.

Naming

First, the made up name of unniloctium, which actually was used by someone in IUPAC sometime, is neglected.

And prose sucks somehow.

"The name hassium was proposed..." How did they choose it? Were there doubts? Other ideas? Does anyone know whose exactly thought it was? Why did they name an element so its name is "hate-ium" when translated into English? (Maybe I know the answer for the last one) More text, you're writing The Most Interesting Section.

"This was because they felt that Hesse did not merit an element being named after it.[1]" The hell? Californium? Bears questions -> no good. And seriosuly, there's like, californium, and four elements after a single village in Sweden, and now we're gonna have one day moscovium, which will probably be 115, what's wrong with "hassium"?

More to come--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nucleosynthesis

The most trashy section. In all of the SHE articles.

Let's now think how to get rid out this trashiness (oh, there IS such a word, not bad).

Let's stray again and look at something else.

Carbon, as a random choice.

What's in its contents?

Contents [hide] 1 Characteristics

1.1 Allotropes

1.2 Occurrence

1.3 Isotopes

1.4 Formation in stars

1.5 Carbon cycle

2 Compounds

2.1 Organic compounds

2.2 Inorganic compounds

2.3 Organometallic compounds

3 History and etymology

4 Production

4.1 Graphite

4.2 Diamond

5 Applications

5.1 Diamonds

6 Precautions

7 Bonding to carbon

8 See also

9 References

10 External links

"Bonding to carbon" is excessive here, but the structure is good otherwise. What's important about carbon?

1. What it is (i.e. our Characteristics section)
2. Meaning to life
3. Chemistry, esp. organic
4. History
5. Production
6. Application: coal, jewelry, etc.
7. Precautions

(I wasn't looking at the list above while writing this list)

As we see, it's all in here.

And none reading this article needs to know when different civilizations got their first C samples. Maybe just the very first (discovery) and a key distributor one, if there was one so important to its further spread (distribution of materials was very important back in ancient history, but that's not our case).

What does a reader who came to read this article need?

1. What does it all mean?
2. Discovery and history
3. Predicted properties
4. Known properties
5. Maybe some stuff about isotope stability
6. Abundance (I wasn't gonna write it originally, but since we have it... it's very cool. This is the level we should seek, talking about contents.)

And not when someone got another isotope. Think why carbon doesn't have anything similar.

My basic suggestion is to delete this whole stuff. We could make a spin-off article (none will hopefully look at) with it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

How about putting it into Isotopes of hassium? Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I nuked the section and dumped it into Isotopes of hassium. At least it makes sense to put the info there. Whether it looks good I cannot say, but at least it is certainly an improvement from what that article used to be.

(Also, why do I find it incredibly amusing that there are still the same number of references, despite this huge moving of content?) Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Natural occurrence

Sweetest section of all.

Okay, it won't hurt if we add in the beginning, "No hassium has been found in nature because, like, it decay away too fast to stay there."

Here's how I would reorganize prose within it.

• In the [early?] 1960s, it was predicted that long-lived deformed isomers of hassium might occur naturally on Earth in trace quantities. This was theorized in order to explain the extreme radiation damage in some minerals that could not have been caused by any known natural radioisotopes, but could have been caused by superheavy elements. [Linear texts read better: "mineral defects found -> it could be hassium," not vice versa]

• If there was a 2006 suggestion, it should go after the 2004 experiment, chronologically.

• JINR search leaves many questions. How did they do it? Did they use the mentioned minerals or what? "Strongly implying that no natural hassium was found"-- weird, because why then didn't say, "guys, we found nothing," like there were a lot of reports of not finding stuff (proton decay, for example). Also, from flerovium: "Flerov is known for writing to Stalin in April 1942 and pointing out the conspicuous silence in scientific journals within the field of nuclear fission in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Flyorov deduced that this research must have become classified information in those countries. Flyorov's work and urgings led to the eventual development of the USSR's own atomic bomb project.[17]" It's worth considering there could be other reasons not to tell the world, not necessarily (but who knows?) military ones, of course.

• The text is very dense and thus hard to follow. I broke it into 3 parts, but the middle one is too dense anyway.

A little info from ru.wiki:

• Also, what region if Kazakhstan? "Originally, after the so-called "finding the element in nature," it was named sergenium (Sg) (at the time, the symbols [sic] were not taken by seaborgium) after the place of the finding -- near the ancient city/town (Russian "город" means both) of Serik (Seriq? Serrick? don't know how to transliterate it correctly) on the Silk Road. Since the discovery has not been confirmed and the name had ties to its discovery place [huh? what's wrong with that? hassium??], it was no more suggested and soon thereafter disappeared."

• For our Naming section: "After the successful synthesis, the name ottohahnium (Oh) [reminds of "nielsbohrium" for 105] was suggested for element 108 after Otto Hahn -- a co-discoverer of nuclear decay." (the context says this suggestion comes from before IUPAC'94)

Both are annoyingly unreferenced.

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Isotopes

Oh baby. Our second trashiest section.

Unlike the previous section, it may have some useful content.

4 Isotopes

(intro text okay)

4.1 Half-lives

(the idea is good, the realization sucks)

4.2 Nuclear isomerism

(aaaargh! kill it with fire!)

4.3 270Hs: prospects for a deformed doubly magic nucleus

(okay)

---

First of all, look at any of our articles on stable elements (off-topic, yes, but that's the whole point of this review: comparison). We'll look at fluorine, since I am making this review.

Isotopes

Main article: Isotopes of fluorine

Fluorine occurs naturally on Earth exclusively in the form of its only stable isotope, fluorine-19,[40] which makes the element monoisotopic and mononuclidic. Seventeen radioisotopes have been synthesized: mass numbers 14–18 and 20–31.[41] Fluorine-18 is the most stable radioisotope of fluorine, with a half-life of 109.77 minutes. It is also the lightest unstable nuclide with equal odd numbers of protons and neutrons.[42]

The lightest fluorine isotopes, those with mass numbers of 14–16, decay via electron capture. 17F and 18F undergo beta plus decay (positron emission). All isotopes heavier than the stable fluorine-19 decay by beta minus mode (electron emission). Some of them also decay by neutron emission.[41]

Only one nuclear isomer (long-lived excited nuclear state), fluorine-18m, has been characterized.[43] Its half-life before gamma ray emission is 160 nanoseconds. This is less than the decay half-life of any of the fluorine radioisotope nuclear ground states except numbers 14–16, 28, and 31.[43]

Or Indium#Isotopes. Or, as a random FA choice, Oxygen#Isotopes and stellar origin.

They don't focus on meta states. While I think it's good to describe them in short in stable element articles, only in short that is.

You know why? Because isotopes isn't such a big topic about oxygen or indium.

Look at Astatine#Isotopes for a more relevant example. I'm not copying it into here just not to make this section too big. It's a single block of text. This is very good. But it's not 100% relevant, because while all important At isotopes have been synthesized, the same doesn't hold for Hs.

Finally, look at the section about predicted nuclear properties of 117 or 118. (If you've seen one, you've seen both) They're not 100% relevant either, no existing isotopes data (okay, very little, because of obvious reasons)

Hassium is both like astatine and ununoctium. And that's the reason why this section should discuss both known info and info about expected isotopes.

Just one more question: Are isotopes a big topic for those two? My opinion is: not really. I mean, it's more important topic for 118 than for oxygen, but it's not really the most important thing about it, and also probably the least gettable. Therefore, we should limit ourselves to one not enormous section. Size of the corresponding astatine section or a little bit more is the upper limit. Maybe not, though, we'll see.

One noticeably big problem: the text talks about half-lives but not decay modes.

---

So, what is to be done?

Merge the intro text and Half-lives subsection, add decay modes, add a couple sentences about isomerism and turn it to good prose. For our purposes, I think, it is enough. The Nuclear isomerism section may be copied into isotopes of hassium and deleted from here. Regarding your question if nucleosynthesis should go there as well, I think, the page will be waaaaay too trashy to host nucleosythesis also. But do as you wish.

Then add here future-isotopes info here, as a different subsection. (Looks like this one will take a while, given we need a research, but there's plenty of info in the Internet about Z=108 stability. You can also use that Brazilian paper from 117 for heaviest isotopes talk, just as a tip.)

(I begin to think this review may need a second wave sometime later, the article will change much after the reorganization being discussed now.)

The discussion above is not relevant for 270Hs talks, of course.

I like that we discuss it separately. We should continue to do so.

But it's not really accessible: "According to calculations, 108 is a proton magic number [what is this?] for deformed nuclei (nuclei that are far from spherical), and 162 is a neutron magic number [scary again] for deformed nuclei."

I'd start the talk a little more differently.

"It is considered today that within the nuclei of atoms, the protons and neutrons are organized into spherical layers called 'shells.' A filled shell typically means greater stability for a nuclei. The numbers of protons and neutrons that form a structure with all shells closed (closed shell structure) are called proton magic number and neutron magic number. No hassium isotope could be expected to receive extra stability from being closed shell structures, as the proton and neutron numbers of the expectedly most stable isotopes (see below) are too far from magic numbers.

But the model may not hold for deformed nuclei (nuclei that are far from spherical), and for them, the magic numbers may turn out to be different. In particular, hassium-270 may have both proton and neutron numbers magic, as 108 and 162, correspondigly, are expected to be magic numbers for deformed nuclei."

Long but more gettable. Don't be picky about wordings.

Treat the whole discussion as such. Write here if you need help with that, but I think I'll take part anyway after the review... With easing off the technicality and trying to write the Intro section (we'll look if it works, we should at very least give it a try).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I'm stopping for now, because 1) I already wrote a lot, 2) I want to focus on fluorine, and 3) most of the written is still to be done. However, I'm ready to continue once you ask me to (even if you did it tomorrow). The remaining sections need contents and prose work, but not organization really.

Also, as a tip, I suggest you add the following code to your /vector.css page:

.citation-comment { display: inline !important; color: red; }

It will show you when refs of Wiki pages are screwed up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Predicted properties

As I told you, these sections don't need extreme reshuffling, but they could use some attention as well. I can't involve philosophy here, alas.

Please keep in mind I had no Internet when I was writing this.

First of all, I fairly believe you could make a short "lead" for this section, probably one para long, in which you would say smth like, "Various calculations show hassium should be a group 8 member, as suggested from periodic law (?). Its properties should generally match those one could predict for the heavier homolog of osmium, with a few deviations arising due to relativistic effects." (We could use that redirect, would you mind creating it?)

Also, it seems logical if you put Physical before Chemical. Maybe it's a matter of taste, but everyone I know does so.

Predicted to be solid -- If you add the mp's for Fe, Ru, and Os, that'll be even more convincing, given the reader will have learned by this moment Hs should be pretty much like the three. Write smth like, "the previous members of the group have relatively high mp's (Fe: ??? C, ... ). Much like them, hassium has been calculated (was it? if so, add the ref after the semicolon) to be a solid; however, the exact melting point has not been pointed out."

I think, the structure (any cell parameters?) should go before density. Just sayin'. Re density, you're underplaying this moment: osmium is the densest element of 6 periods, and its period 7 homolog, hassium, should be the densest element of the seven periods.

What is bulk modulus? (a phrase is parentheses will do)

I'm not sure if Hs is a PGM. Like, coinage metals are Cu, Ag, Au. If Rg will be a group 11 member, it doesn't mean it'll be a coinage metal, because, well, you can't make a coin of it. I thought (never checked) the term PGM comes from, or is popularized by, geology. If Hs will be as we expect it to be, people still won't mine it with osmium and you won't end up selling precious hassium bars. It's just my personal thinking (feel free to correct me), but I think saying "will maybe be much like PGMs" is much better than "will be a PGM."

Some properties were determined -- if they support the calculation, say so. If not (say, experiment was checking not what was calculated), then it belong to the next section.

...as the group is descended -- do people actually speak so? (I don't know, I'm just asking)

Ruthenium and osmium show... -- you can easily lose the sentence if you replace "+8 state" in the previous sentence with "+8 state (which is very rare for other elements)." Be more concise.

Also, as we are talking about prose. I'm no prose master (you already know), but here's a very useful tip: Use shorter sentences. I was rereading the whole article, and some run-on sentences just await to be broken in two or three. (This very section, however, does not have such a problem.)

You know, I recently familiarized myself with the problem. Shorter sentences are really better. Shorter paras are better as well. When I was a kid (age 6 and around that), I could handle books with no pics, but long paras always provoked the desire to shut the book. The very point is, when a para is over, you give yourself a few seconds to memorize what you've read. It practically works the same way with sentences, but the break is shorter (most people don't even notice it, but it is there) Today, it seems okay when I see longer sentences about concepts I'm familiar with (also prose if the action isn't going too fast), but if I'm unfamiliar with it, I may need to read a few sentences over (and, sometimes, and over again). And you essentially write Wiki for people unfamiliar with your subject. Most readers are.

It is a neat question, actually. Sometimes in prose, it can be used for description, so the reader feels, there are more and more positive/negative sides of a things. Also, in movies when they show girls talking about boring blah blah (if the subject is boring, the sentences will be runon)

But you don't want to write blah blah, so use shorter sentences.

Osmium also shows OSes of -- again, you could lose this sentence and next one if you then write, "Analogously to its lighter homologs, hassium is expected to show lower stable OSes, namely ... ." And you could have a note with a table that has the stable OSes for these elements. Actually, I think this would make the prose more concise and keep the info.

It might make sense to get an Oxides subheader. (I don't insist, though)

This para is good, but you could explain in parentheses what terms "electron affinity" and "enthalpy" mean. Re tetroxides, you should explain why the tetrahedral shape would make the compound volatile (negative delta q stuff). In a separate sentence.

Experimental chem

The first part of this is good and readable. Sometimes, it could be less technical (it's not a science paper).

Was first synthesized in 1984 -- as we read before, it is dubious. Why use a date here at all?

but also the reaction... -- for chemistry, the cross-sections aren't that important. How about ending this sentence with "could not provide enough hassium for chemical investigation"?

You can place a period after the word "promising." Also, you can lose the reaction equation.

You had the tetroxides example in the previous section.

An order of magnitude -- seems a little rough. If it's six orders, then it's not a problem, but one order, can't it be turned into a number?

(Apparatus pic)

But here, it's getting worse. Very technical. I'll reread my earlier advice for the article in general and will write something.

In any case, you won't have to redo structure here, just the prose.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(some empty space, so I see the section isn't complete yet)

Pictures and such

(Hopefully, I don't forget to put it in the end of this text after I finish it)

This one will hopefully be short.

Infobox: it seems more logical if the period goes before the group (consider this a proposal for all infoboxes). Also, the word "here" in the bottom is unneeded (minor, yeah, remember I don't have the Internet as of writing this).

Hessen pic. In this very place, I think a small gallery of Oganessian and any German would suit better. (See rutherfordium, something like that)

Naming section. A Hessen pic would suit here better. But! Here's a point. Think of Italy. What are your first associations? For me, those are beautiful women, the leaning tower, pasta and pizza, Coliseum, thin streets, street cafes, summer. You may have your set. But most people don't describe it as a shoe (they do? try Peru. Tibet. Tirol)

If we try to think out of box, what kind of picture could describe Hessen. A native culture festival, maybe. Sure, some people are maybe too conservative for anything other than a map, I don't have a strong feeling I'm right, but at least give it a thought.

This article could use more pics, but I'm not sure what those would be (we can't coat it with portraits!) (again, just give it a thought)

What's the point of having the unsynthesized isotopes in that table?

I strongly advice losing the other table (you mention both compounds in the text)

The machine graphic could be vectorized. (I can't tell if it is, so just pointing out)

The metallocenes. Do they really illustrate a point? You probably can tell better, but, like, for 117 we have them 'cause they illustrate the relativity effects. If hassium is gonna be like Os and Ru, then it's a Fe--everyone else difference, so not that important for hassium. Maybe you could have some photos from the experiments if they're available (you can try emailing people, I think they'll be happy to respond)

Intro into SHE section

I strongly advice writing it ASAP.

First of all, it is a useful thing to get started.

Just for you to get some expression, here's an example from real life. U.S. set up democracy in Palestine, and expected its people to be loyal for overthrowing a "tyranny." Palestinians elected Islamists who then stop any collaboration with the U.S. (Let's stay away from the discussion if doing that was a right thing, for both Americans and Arabs.) Therefore, misunderstandings can lead to fatal consequences. The easiest choice would be to give up, but you can't just close that "Palestine" window. The land will remain where it is, in Middle East. They had to make a decision: to overthrow or not to. They did. They mistook.

Luckily (or not), our reader doesn't stand in front of this live-or-dead question. He can close the window.

Which we don't want him to do.

A more related example: the ongoing 117 PR. The reviewer said smth like, "I don't understand quantum chem, I'll stay away from that." If we were better at explaining stuff, we could probably save him and make him read it. Of course, we can't make everyone read it, some give up too easily, maybe we couldn't save him either, I'm not familiar with him, can't say for sure. But some people, we could make read that. (Speaking of 117, could you add the 1981 info to the text with that "extrapolated" label?) So it doesn't mean we have a bad article, we'll investigate that point later (just to be sure).

But here, boy, there's a lotta room for improvement. Not because the article is bad. Because the article is relatively exotic for most people. We should make them wanna read it. Like, 117 has a very cool History section (not very decent to say this, but I really think we're making people get in easily because they're starting off easily with a narrative, but they're getting into the SHE atmosphere), which is why I'm not really afraid of 117. After all, however good we are, we can't save everyone. I even think that section there could spoil the easy reading. We could set up intro chem course (general chem) before the Chemical section there, but it seems like too much. None will read a long course to understand a short subsection, so screw that. But are you getting the point?

Here, we could do even better. Let's write a short intro course into SHE in general assuming a reader has very basic understanding of atoms and such. He'll be reading, and be like, "Oh, that was clear, I'm learning!" Actually, it makes me a little proud when I understand something about a topic I'm no expert at, so if I were that reader, I'd be motivated to read on. And I will read on. And that guy will be as well, since he got here.

See what I mean?

But wait, there's more!

Once the section is ready, we can copy it everywhere, so other article get better as well. So we work one time to make ~15 articles better.

I suggest you do it ASAP. As a part of Fl work, as a part of Hs work, as a sandbox draft, doesn't matter. I can help if you what me to.

Srsly, the sooner, the better.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)