Wikipedia:Peer review/Nihonium/archive1

Nihonium

I've listed this article for peer review because it's got arguably the most interesting history among the four newest elements (Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og) and I'd like to get it to FA.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Galobtter

There seems some over-detail of irrelevant to Nihonium stuff:

The now-confirmed discovery of element 114 was made in June 1999 when the Dubna team repeated the first reaction from 1998. This time, two atoms of flerovium were produced; they alpha decayed with a half-life of 2.6 s, different from the 1998 result. This activity was initially assigned to 288Fl in error, due to the confusion regarding the previous observations that were assumed to come from 289Fl. Further work in December 2002 finally allowed a positive reassignment of the June 1999 atoms to 289Fl. During and after this confirmation of the new element 114, the Dubna–Livermore collaboration sought to bolster its discovery by cross-reactions, producing elements 116 and 118 in 2000 and 2002 respectively to identify known isotopes of element 114 as their daughters and verify the observed decay properties: this was done by retaining the calcium-48 beam and changing the targets to curium-248 and californium-249 respectively.

The whole quote looks like it could be summarized as "The Dubna team produced elements 114, 116, 118" (or thereabouts - may have gotten it a bit wrong, but I think you can get the idea) with no real loss towards the history of the discovery of element 113. The same is true in the early indications section - not tightly or clearly enough related to Nihonium but rather seeming generic history of discovery of synthetic elements. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the early indications section, what I mean is that one has to read the entirety of:

Flerovium was first synthesized in December 1998 by a team of scientists at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, led by Yuri Oganessian, who bombarded a target of plutonium-244 with accelerated nuclei of calcium-48:

²⁴⁴
₉₄Pu
+ ⁴⁸
₂₀Ca
→ ²⁹²
₁₁₄Fl
* → ²⁹⁰
₁₁₄Fl
+ 2 ¹
₀
n

This reaction had been attempted before, but without success; for this 1998 attempt, the JINR had upgraded all of its equipment to detect and separate the produced atoms better and bombard the target more intensely. A single atom of flerovium, decaying by alpha emission with a lifetime of 30.4 seconds, was detected. The decay energy measured was 9.71 MeV, giving an expected half-life of 2–23 s. This observation was assigned to the isotope flerovium-289 and was published in January 1999. The experiment was later repeated, but an isotope with these decay properties was never found again and hence the exact identity of this activity is unknown. It is possible that it was due to the metastable isomer 289mFl, but because the presence of a whole series of longer-lived isomers in its decay chain would be rather doubtful, the most likely assignment of this chain

Before one has the slightest indication that it's in anyway related to Nihonium - leading with along the lines of A possible first report of a decay chain from an isotope of nihonium was.. would help; so would cutting down on the unneeded details and converting it to say two sentences or so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I've tried to address this concern. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely addressed for the dubna-livermore section; I still have some problems with the early indications section but I'll give some proper feedback later (tomorrow perhaps) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

they made an attempt on element 114 (which was predicted to be a magic number, closing a proton shell, and hence more stable than element 113)

They then turned their attention to the missing odd-numbered elements, as they were expected to possibly be even more stable as the odd protons and possibly neutrons

This may be from editing down the previous paragraph, but there's nothing for it to be "even more stable" of; certainly 113 is not more stable than 114 so it doesn't seem like a general pattern the way it is described.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I edited it down too much. The point is that odd superheavy elements have increased stability to fission, but not to alpha decay, and I've reinstated some of that. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Early in the morning, at 5:50 a.m. (JST), on the last day of 2015, I received an e-mail from the president of IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Division II, Professor Jan Reedijk. He wrote, "May I first of all congratulate you and all of your colleagues in the Riken collaboration on the fact that the discovery of the element with Atomic Numbers of 113 has been assigned to work that you and your collaborating team has carried out." It was the moment where it truly hit me that our group had become the very first Asian scientific research group to discover a new element.

I don't think this quote adds too much - generic congratulations definitely doesn't add anything, and I don't think repeating that being the first asian scientific research etc adds much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed. I also realise that I haven't adequately explained the relevant JWP criteria and what the teams were looking to achieve (linking the chains to a known daughter was the most important thing); I will try to add some more info on this later today. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Good! Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I have added more content to the History section in an attempt to address this. I'd greatly appreciate it if you gave it another look to see if the story could be told better in any places. I've tried to focus as much as possible on element 113, although some other elements occasionally provide cameo appearances (mostly 115 and 117, which are known to decay to 113, since the element 114 possibility is tentative and was never formally claimed). Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Will definitely take a look - Double sharp, feel free to remind me if I forget and don't do it within a few days. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, I think I might do a few more additions: currently the "Road to confirmation" sections is very long, and I think it would be better to split it into 2004–2008 and 2008–2015 (since the third JWP which approved elements 112, 114, and 116 and rejected 113, 115, and 118 published its report in two halves in 2009 and 2011, considering papers published up to 2008). This lets us distinguish the comments of the third JWP from those of the fourth JWP (which published its report in 2016, supposedly for papers up to 2012, but in practice allowing in 2013 papers as well), as the third JWP considered the stuff in the first subsection while the fourth JWP (which considered and approved elements 113, 115, 117, and 118) considered the stuff in the second. (If you're curious, though this is beyond the scope here: the first JWP approved element 110 in 2003 and the second approved element 111 in 2004. Before then there wasn't a JWP but a TWG, a Transfermium Working Group, which handled the controversy on elements 101 through 109.) Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have done most of this work. I would still want to clarify a few things about the 2011 JWP comments as well as some more detailed chronology (months instead of years, along with the Jarlskog thing at the symposium at the end), but things are mostly there. I am also looking for something about the Japanese reaction to the naming and their christening ceremony for the new element (attended by Prince Naruhito) to end the story in 2017. I guess I should also allude briefly to Dubna's 2017 response to the Lund University criticism, even though that was more for elements 115 and 117, so that it doesn't hang.

I also realise that, this being a short-lived superheavy element for which our entire knowledge is that it's not very volatile, the History section is now pretty much the main focus of the whole article, which to me makes it feel very top-heavy. This sort of thing may be unavoidable for nihonium in particular (I wasn't kidding when I said the history was the most interesting at the start of this peer review), but I'm definitely open to suggestions that turn this deficiency into a virtue, or at least get close to doing so. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

On the lead, I think it needs some expansion. although it should also show several major differences from them could do with some explanation of why that's so + some important properties are similar and different. It isn't explained why Riken got the priority of discovery despite "Nihonium was first reported to have been created in 2003 by" the dubna team (sidenote: should likely link "priority" to scientific priority). This explanation I think would go hand in hand with more on the history of the element - considering how much of the article is on that it makes sense to devote more of the lead to it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have preliminary added "as the RIKEN team had been the first to confirm their results and persuasively demonstrate that they originated from element 113". This isn't a complete summary either, but it should at least address the readers' questions for now: I'm currently editing on my phone, which is not the best place to compose articles ^_^ (but please do keep giving comments, that I can act on later today!). Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that at-least gives some explanation..working on comments as I think of them :) I'm kinda comparing this article to Tennessine to see how it can be improved/if anything is missing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's taken more time than it probably would've on my computer at home, but I've expanded the lede, taking Ts as the model. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice! Minor point but the citations should be removed in the lead as either consistently used in the lead or not used.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed all citations. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence, the most stable oxidation state of nihonium is predicted to be the +1 state I think it'd be better to state all the possible oxidation states first in a sentence, instead of it being spread across the paragraph. Maybe also give a little overview of it while stating the oxidation states. Currently that paragraph is also humongous - and could do with a split. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reorganised this paragraph, once again taking Ts as the model. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Lot better! Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Because the 6d electrons are involved in bonding instead of the 7s ones, these molecules are predicted to be T-shaped and not trigonal planar. Needs something like "as for other trifluorides"? i.e what it is being compared to More explanation is needed - why 6d is bonding and how that effects the shape. An image as in Tennessine#Chemical may also be beneficial; also may want to section the predicted properties section as in Tennessine.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• The stability of nuclei quickly decreases with the increase in atomic number after curium, element 96, whose.. This paragraph is somewhat disjointed from the rest of the section; information on how exactly Nihonium's stability is increased + perhaps cutting. "This concept, proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, explains why superheavy elements last longer than predicted." I don't see this concept doing much explaining - the island of stability just seems to be naming.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is theoretically predicted that nihonium should have an enthalpy of sublimation around 150 kJ/mol and an enthalpy of adsorption on a gold surface around −159 kJ/mol. is in the Experiment chemistry section - shouldn't it be in the predicted properties section? Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Moved. Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Can't make sense of this sentence..Teflon capillaries at 70 °C connecting the recoil chamber, where the nihonium atoms were synthesized, and the gold-covered detectors: the nihonium atoms would be carried along the capillaries by a carrier gas.

Is it supposed to be Teflon capillaries at 70 °C connected the recoil chamber, where the nihonium atoms were synthesized, and the gold-covered detectors; the nihonium atoms would be carried along the capillaries by a carrier gas.? Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Rewording would make it clearer and shorter: The nihonium atoms were synthesized in a recoil chamber and then carried along Teflon capillaries at 70 °C by a carrier gas to the gold-covered detectors.
  • Rephrased accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also can the carrier gas be specified (implied to be a noble gas)? Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not specified in the Eichler source, though I will try to find it somewhere else. There must have been some water vapour in it, for otherwise it is difficult to explain the possible formation of NhOH; I am not sure though if that water vapour had been meant to be there or not (but will check). Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• On the description of the volatility experiment needs:
  • How does this, ²⁴³Am(⁴⁸Ca,3n)²⁸⁸Mc, represent a reaction? ²⁴³Am + ⁴⁸Ca → 3n + ²⁸⁸Mc is
    • This is standard shorthand notation, used for example in the discovery papers and the JWP reports. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah; for a more general audience using a full equation would be needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • OK, but I've used this notation before in the article, with explanation: e.g. from the History section "In 2004, the RIKEN team also studied the ²⁰⁵Tl(⁷⁰Zn,n)²⁷⁴Rg reaction, retaining the zinc beam and impinging it on a thallium rather than a bismuth target, in an effort to directly produce ²⁷⁴Rg in a cross-bombardment as the immediate daughter of ²⁷⁸113." It really does seem to be necessary if I have to give a lot of these equations inline, so I'd prefer to keep it as standard notation with an explanation. Do you think the current explanation is fine, or should I draw more attention to it? Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
          • If there is explanation right along-side the shorthand notation I think it could fine, however if there isn't it needs to be explained. I think prose ("isotope ²⁸⁸Mc, produced by bombarding ⁴⁸Ca on ²⁴³Am, was used..") would be better in this this experimental chemistry section. Similarly the notation doesn't do much more than confuse in that history section example - better to just have the isotope number (thallium-205 etc) in the text and omit the equation. Tennessine doesn't use this notation; does use along the lines of "⁴⁸Ca + ²⁴³Am reaction."; also it generally seems to have less full reactions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
            • I've replaced all occurrences of this shorthand with the "²⁰⁵Tl+⁷⁰Zn" format used in the Ts article; I trust the plus sign is self-explanatory, since I'm not looking forward to converting all the occurrences in the immense History section into prose. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Plus sign should be self-explanatory. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand how nihonium having a similar volatility to the noble gases would prevent it being from detected..Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The source doesn't say this explicitly (and so the warning bells of OR have started ringing) but it seems pretty obvious to me – the noble gases are highly volatile and so the Nh would have diffused away too quickly to be detected. Added. Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I've addressed everything I can easily get done today. Please feel free to keep giving comments; I'll continue rectifying them as I go along just as I did today. Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In the article I have used the following principle for when to use "nihonium" and when to use "element 113":

• The lede, being a simple summary, uses "nihonium".
• Anything outside the "History" section uses "nihonium", as these properties are timeless regardless of when the experiments were carried out.
• To avoid anachronisms, the "History" sections uses "element 113" until the very end when Morita proposed the name "nihonium" in March 2016 and it becomes official in November; similarly, atomic numbers are used for all the elements 112–118, as in 2004 (when both claims were first published) only 111 elements had been named, culminating in roentgenium (Rg, Z = 111).

I've been influenced on this by R8R, though I'd be very interested to hear your opinion on this as well (particularly on the case of how to deal with chemical experiments done before the element was named, for which both "Nh" and "113" make sense for different reasons). Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The history of the confirmation of Nh is so long and complicated (literally every single known isotope of Nh is mentioned somewhere in it) that I think it might be best to make an illustration for it. Each decay chain from each Nh isotope would then be shown, with reactions and cross-reactions (and dates) used to produce it marked in green or red depending on whether or not they were successful. I think we can ignore the possible isotopes ²⁸⁷Nh and ²⁹⁰Nh since these were never claimed as element 113 and this reinterpretation dates from 2016, after Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og had already been approved. This will take some time to illustrate well, but I think it'd be very helpful. Double sharp (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Think that would be helpful - little lost on some of the decay chains and what not. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I've added a diagram at the "Road to confirmation" section, albeit not as detailed as I originally intended (this was more difficult than expected, especially abusing Word AutoShapes...) ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp thanks for giving me a laugh - especially with the cursor being in the first version..:) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

What's with the "chemistry" next to 268 Db and the crossed out stuff and what's "no link" and "link"? ​? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"Chemistry" means that the identification of ²⁶⁸Db went via chemistry experiments, rather than making it via a cross-reaction. The crossed-out "²⁰⁵Tl + ⁷⁰Zn" means that that reaction was tried, but didn't work; similarly "link" means that a link between two nuclides was made there via a cross-reaction, and "no link" means that there was an attempt to make one that failed. Can you think of a better way to show these concisely in the picture? Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: (I forgot to ping you in the previous reply.) It's possible of course that there's no need to mention those since only successful cross-reactions were considered this time around; I've uploaded a new version without these headscratchers, leaving the various unsuccessful attempts to the text. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so this may not make too much sense since I'm a bit tired, but essentially I think the history portion is somewhat, or in some areas, too much like a narrative style rather than an encylopaedic style..One example is of the blockquotes which are more suited to the article two are cited from - the chemworld "What it takes to make a new element" article than here; I feel that the block quotes I was on sabbatical, ... and I remember thinking to myself "Why are we rushing, why are we doing this so fast? There isn't anybody else doing this experiment." About six months later, the Japanese results came out. and Of six new elements, IUPAC recognises five for our institute. We're quite happy – our Japanese colleagues spent 10 years for the synthesis of three nuclei. Professor Morita is our good friend, he spent many years in our laboratory. He's our pupil, so it's not a problem for us! probably need to go to, replaced with paraphrase as appropriate - the first quote is interesting but unless turned into a "The dubna-livermore team did the experiments quickly" kind of thing probably not appropriate.

"One further cloud hung over the recognition." I feel is a narrative style phrase not an encyclopaedic one..(addendum: or maybe not, 50-50 on it, also could just be me trying to make this article's wording as boring as possible..:)) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"To us, this is somewhat unexpected decision...." I don't really understand what the JINR is trying to say in that quote - what does "However, the method of synthesizing the superheavy elements, chosen by RIKEN researchers is completely exhausted; moreover, today they plan future experiments using only the method proposed in Dubna." have to do with the assigning - after all priority is from first confirmed synthesis not whether the RIKEN team had the better method; think that quote needs trimming/cutting/paraphrasing/more context Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by R8R

The article reads well. I will post comments soon but I've got a question I couldn't answer I couldn't answer on my first read. Why did the experiments of 2009--2010 were not a sufficient proof of discovery of element 113 given that they were good enough for element 115?--R8R (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

From my understanding of the JWP report, they would have been if not for the fact that RIKEN's claim to element 113 predated it. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that I've read your explanation and re-read the text, I see it. However, it wouldn't hurt to specifically say that the JWP recognized that specific 2009 Japanese effort.--R8R (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

History

• conducted at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany from 1981 to 1996. -- looks like the institute was called Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung as of then
• closed-shell lead -- WP:SEAOFBLUE
• in 1974 at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia -- technically speaking, there was no Russia in 1974 (even more technically speaking, there was the Russian SFSR, but nobody ever talked about it without talking about the Soviet Union in general). I prefer to refer to a particular town/city by its name, the name of the highest-level national subdivision, and then the name of the country, for instance, "Livermore, California, United States." I am certain that most Americans don't know most places in the U.S. and the same should be true for every not too small country, so a "California" specifier surely helps them. With Soviet places in particular, I use a four-level introduction because, technically speaking, the country was a union of several countries and that union broke up later: "Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union." Germany (even West Germany) isn't too small to not merit a specifier, either: "Darmstadt, Hesse, West Germany/Germany." Likewise, the location of "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States" could be a little more precise and so could be that of RIKEN. This is generally a thing to check throughout the article
• Dubna–Livermore collaboration -- notably enough, RIKEN is never referred by the name of the town it is located in. Some consistency would be great
• 244Pu+48Ca reaction from 1998:[12][13] -- I think either a period or a semicolon would be more appropriate
• While the Dubna–Livermore collaboration had been approaching element 113 from above, a team of Japanese scientists at the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science led by Kōsuke Morita had been approaching it from below. -- this is perhaps cool to say in an authored book but it's so un-encyclopedic. An encyclopedia should list facts, not give assignments
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory could use a location, too.
• began on 5 September 2003. -- some consistency with dates would also be appreciated. All dates up to this point were just "month year"
• The RIKEN experiment practically exhausted cold fusion as a method for making new elements -- it would be a fine statement if it was made by a particular person, but Wiki shouldn't claim things. Oganessian apparently thought that the method had practically exhausted before he tried to go for an atomic number this high. (All it takes is just a rewording.) Nevertheless, it may still be of use in making new isotopes of already known elements -- see, not exhausted here after all
• a further atom -- perhaps "another atom"?
• synthesised a new isotope of element 113 -- it has never actually been proven that they actually had done this. The JWP didn't just recognize it the announcement upon hearing it for a reason. I'd generally try to go with statements like "claimed to have synthesized" or "announced their synthesis"
• meeting the JWP criteria -- too bold a claim; the JWP didn't seem to agree
• The third JWP -- what's the point in telling the number of another JWP?
• published its report on new discoveries in two parts: the first part was released in 2009 and was focused on element 112 (discovered at the GSI), while the second part was released in 2011 and was focused on the elements beyond 112 -- not all too relevant here. We're looking not for the best info on the report itself, we're looking only for info on element 113
• Only experiments whose results had been published by 2008 were considered. -- this is obvious given the location of this para and the chronological sequence you're going through
• elements 115 and 117 were awarded to the Dubna–Livermore–ORNL–Vanderbilt collaboration, and element 118 was awarded to the Dubna–Livermore collaboration -- that's cool but element 118 had not even been mentioned by now, and even elements 115 and 117, if relevant at all, could use a phrase like "while the Dubna–Livermore–ORNL–Vanderbilt [town--town--institute--institute -- R8R] coalition's efforts were recognized for elements 115 and 117 (that had been mentioned), they were preceded by the Japanese experiment by almost a year and that was why 113 was recognized as discovered by the Japanese team."
• I'd mention that the JINR never seriously brought up the topic of their non-recognition after that January 2016 remark. Perhaps you could say they didn't mention that when reporting the official December 2016 announcement
• Morita proposed the name "nihonium" to IUPAC -- I think it would be great to mention that Morita wanted specifically the (or should I say, "a") Japanese name of Japan
  • I also remember you asked on your talk page why it wasn't nipponium; I think this presentation by Hideto En'yo has the answer to this and why it wasn't japonium, but it's in Japanese and my skills in that language are definitely not up to snuff: I will try to make some sense of it, if necessary by asking around. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I briefly checked your response but was caught by it. I've checked it, and the presentation says the reason was that the symbol Np for nipponium was already taken by neptunium (hence the x mark near that name).--R8R (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, I've added it. Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• One further cloud hung over the recognition -- first, what was the first cloud? second, this is too literary and not too encyclopedic

Great job overall.--R8R (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Isotopes

• (although 287Nh and 290Nh are unconfirmed) -- this statement would be hard to keep up-to-date. Suggest removing it
• have an electron capture branch -- this could be rephrased to facilitate reader-friendliness. "Decay via electron capture" sounds better
  • Actually, because of the unsureness of some of the EC-involving branches (from ²⁸⁴Nh and leading to ²⁸⁷Nh and ²⁹⁰Nh), I would think that this information is not terribly useful: as it stands we can only detect alpha decay and SF and have to infer the rest. I'll need to expand the section to mention that (as well as perhaps include a note about how EC should become more important as we approach the closed neutron shell at N = 184, indicating that what we see now may not be all that happens). Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• the heavier nihonium isotopes are more stable than the lighter ones -- it wouldn't hurt to enhance understanding of that this trend won't go on forever. Try "heavier known isotopes"
• in good agreement -- this, too, breaks the "no claims" rule. Why is it good in particular?
• The stability of nuclei quickly decreases with the increase in atomic number after curium... -- we most certainly should start the talk with this, not finish it
• four orders of magnitude -- this could be phrased in reader-friendlier terms without seeming stupid. Try "thousands (or tens of thousands if that's also correct) times"
• University of California professor Glenn Seaborg -- Seabord could really use a better description given the general context of the superheavy elements

Predicted properties

• For many theoretical purposes -- don't mind me being picky but that's how you get good texts. Why "many" in particular? "some" or "various" would be just fine
• 7s electrons should be stabilised enough to not participate in chemical reactions -- this is a seemingly uncontestable statement and then you refute it by saying that actually this is possible and maybe even more
  • I've looked and I can't see where I said that the 7s electrons would participate; everything I said about the higher oxidation states was using the 6d electrons instead of the 7s electrons. Can you point me to it? (Although I agree this needs some explanation if I can find the original papers, because the 7s level on the figure is higher than the 6d_5/2 figure.) Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • You have not; that's my mistake. It will be great if you say instead of the current phrase "The latter two stem from the involvement of the 6d electrons" something clearer on the part that even +5 is in fact 6d67s2 rather than 6d8, as I first imagined: "The latter two stem, rather than from the involvement of the 7s electrons, from the involvement of the 6d electrons" (first the false thesis, then the correct one)--R8R (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't quite have enough time to fix this today, but in the meantime here's the original paper The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements was using: 10.1063/1.480168. It seems that this may be more complicated than the brief summary in the book lists (but cooler) and I will try to add a better description tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• basic TlOH -- WP:SEAOFBLUE
• Nihonium is expected to be much denser than thallium -- it would be a great to mention the density of thallium
• This is because calculations estimate it to have an atomic radius of about 170 pm, the same as that of thallium, even though periodic trends would predict -- the rather natural flow is to state the simple theory and then refute it with complex calculations, not otherwise since the complex calculations are still correct
• The melting and boiling points of nihonium are not definitely known -- not at all, actually

As selfish as it sounds, I genuinely like the writing in this section :) though I want rather start with the physical properties given that they are simpler and are good with illustrating the atomic differences--R8R (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Experimental chemistry

• "[62][61]" -- watch out for such irregularities in reference numbering
• at the Dubna -- watch out for irregularities in grammar, too
• along Teflon capillaries at 70 °C by a carrier gas -- why did the capillaries have their material named but the carrier gas was not revealed?
• it seems -- this is weasely and I actually want to know what brought them to this conclusion
• [61] 285Nh -- a rewording wouldn't hurt
• This also implies -- as we can conclude even from this section, no theory is to be taken for granted. Try "suggests"
• "It has been suggested" -- this statement is referenced but still could be rephrased to avoid the nasty weasel wording

Good job overall. I don't see any big omissions in the article.--R8R (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just in case, I'll give the last sections another look tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't wait. There you have it.--R8R (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll get working on this soon. Double sharp (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on these and I think many of the first ones are done; I'll ping you when all of them are. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to take another look on the section on computational physics/chemistry in a very few days if not today, so please don't close the review yet--R8R (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: That's the one thing I haven't quite gotten to addressing yet, so if you don't mind I'll likewise request that we hold on for one or two days to let me finish it up (sorry!). Double sharp (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Predicted properties, round 2

• It is predicted to show many differences from its lighter homologues: a largely contributing effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction. It is especially strong for the superheavy elements... -- it's okay but it strikes that the wording could be better. Of the three facts mentioned here, the latter two seem more closely connected yet they are in different sentences
• Both these levels are raised to be close in energy to the 7s ones. -- I sort of expect an implication from this but for some reason I'm let down on this one :( what does this mean practically?
• since nihonium atoms are heavier than thallium atoms but have the same volume -- technically it depends on the size of a unit cell rather than a singular atom. Perhaps it would be good that the crystal structures are going to be the same in this sentence?
• Nihonium and flerovium are expected to form a very short subperiod -- I really really think you're starting off from the very beginning with a quite deliberate and super reader-unfriendly fact here (sure, a person who is already interested and knows something will follow, but I'm afraid that the general reader is left out). Also you don't really need to mention flerovium to get your point you're delivering in the next sentences through
• The latter two stem from the involvement of the 6d electrons, which, being destabilized, may still be able to participate in chemical reactions in nihonium -- this would be great to somehow link to the previous raised energies fact. I think I handled that in tennessine just fine: "These effects cause tennessine's chemistry to differ from those of its upper neighbors (see below)." Try that or whatever you think solves the problem but please solve it
• The standard electrode potential for the Nh+/Nh couple is predicted to be −0.6 V. -- this may be spelling things out but I'd love you to do so and try to say what this actually means and why is this at all important (reader-friendliness, that's all)
• all other MH (M = Fl, Mc, Lv, Ts, Og) molecules -- I'd try to say something like "all other 7p elements' monohydrides." The text appears more reader-friendly if you stick to words whenever possible. It's up to you, though.
• (NhCl3), with -- I think this either misses an "all" or has one comma too many
• as their boron analogues are -- the comparison is more colorful if you compare nihonium to thallium rather than five-periods-away boron disregard that, I've read the accompanying note

it appears fine otherwise, something reader-unfriendly just stroke me and I decided to check the section once more--R8R (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've done some reshuffling of this section to make things go according to oxidation state (+1 first as the major one; then −1 as an also present one, and then the relatively exotic +3 and +5 with the interesting molecular geometries). I will expand a bit on Nh^III and Nh^V. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: I have done a reorganisation of this section; please let me know what you think! Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good but could use some improvements still. More on that during the weekend or during the next week, okay? I'm running super short on time IRL--R8R (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, now that my username is officially reduced to its shorter version, the ping didn't get through :( I'm watching things so I've still gotten the message and I'll keep watching the situation but I'll be unable to make substantial edits until I have more spare time.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: No problem; looking forward to it! Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I've just re-read this and it actually looks great. I only have a couple of minor complains. More on that in a few hours.--R8R (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I found important on a re-read:

• by thallium it has become more stable than the +3 state -- "becomes" seems more natural to me here: we're not listing a sequence of events, we're listing natural facts
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• The SO splitting of the 7p subshell thus creates a "partial role reversal" of elements 114 (flerovium) and 118 (oganesson), where while oganesson has the technically closed 7p subshell that flerovium does not, the loose binding of the 7p3/2 electrons means that oganesson is actually more reactive than flerovium. -- this seems a little off-topic. I mean, I understand why you put it here anв what you're trying to say but the point is not about those elements; it is only about electron configurations. Try rephrasing that somehow in terms of electron configurations rather than elements
  • I understand and agree. I'll work on a rewrite. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Rewritten with less redundancy and more obvious links to Nh specifically. Double sharp (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• astatine has an electron affinity of 2.3 eV -- that's a little too much, we're not even writing about a group 17 element to begin with
  • I mentioned At because it is a pseudohomologue of Nh (already mentioned), since they both need one extra electron to get to the closed-shell configuration. Maybe I should clarify more why At might be relevant, though. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Removed tbe statement about At (retained Ts). Double sharp (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• On the basis of the small energy gap between the 6d and 7s electrons, the higher oxidation states +3 and +5 have been suggested for nihonium. -- this is confusing. Wouldn't +3 be expected anyway? Even according to the chart in the beginning of this section, 7s still lies above 6d_5/2. I guess you're trying to say that a pair of 6d_5/2 electrons is going to act as sort of valence electrons (am I guessing your intention right?) but this is very difficult to read from that phrase
  • It's not that simple: the contribution of 6d to both NhF₃ and NhF₅ is quite small (the calculated 6d populations are 9.61 and 9.12 respectively), though it's still significant. In general it's difficult to explain these molecules in terms of electron pairs in bonding. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Precisely the opposite effect is expected for the superheavy member of group 17, tennessine, due to the relativistic stabilisation of the 7p1/2 orbital: thus while IF3 is T-shaped, TsF3 is expected to be trigonal planar. -- this is just off-topic. I think this is better removed.
  • This was intended as another illustration of the role-swapping between Nh and Ts, but I agree that it doesn't convince the reader that it's staying on-topic. I wonder if leaving this as a note might work, though. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Turned into a note. Double sharp (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise the section seems very decent to me.

History, round 2

Still don't forget to work on your History section. While we're at it, I recommend trying to remove your quotations and have your decay chain graph reworked so you could align it to the right. The section seems very long and this should help quite a bit.--R8R (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if you ever feel sorry about removing anything from a lengthy section, you can always make a subarticle of it, which should aid the main article since you won't be as sorry about deleting your work.--R8R (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think a summary containing predictions for all the transactinides might be better than a subarticle about predicted Nh chemistry alone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It is just a suggestion, I have no means or intention to force you into that. But a summary would require some extra work while copying as is usually doesn't, that's my point. By the way, all edits made today were great!--R8R (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I fully intend to make some more. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I've removed the quotations from the History section. Do you have any more suggestions for improving it further, other than reworking the decay chains illustration? Double sharp (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I will look into it closely after John's comments re prose quality in dubnium have been dealt with, okay? By the way, here's where you can get your illustration reworked.--R8R (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Yes, I know about the Graphics Lab workshops. What I'm still pondering is how the info could be presented better and in a way that can actually become a right-aligned image. ^_^ If I can't think of a solution I really like for that soon I'll make an open request (not dictating what the result ought to look like). Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine; take your time.--R8R (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I've made a request at the Graphics Lab. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Am I correct in assuming that this is the last thing that's holding you from starting the FAC or have I missed something? If I haven't, then you are free to go forward because this is the sort of an issue that can be fixed during the FAC, and that is because it is not essential. Pictures always seemed somewhat optional to me. It is good when you have something, but that's probably it. I cannot imagine anyone actually complaining about poor aesthetics of the graph as it is now (after all, this is an encyclopedia, not an artistic exhibition).--R8R (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: please ping me if I haven't written anything by a week from now. I'm busy at the moment but should probably be free on the weekend or at least sometime during the next week.--R8R (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Some review now in awaiting of the next Tuesday:

• at the JINR -- As I see it, the correct form would be at JINR, I googled that for the dubnium FAC. Or not? I'm not sure. Would you clarify?
  • At the JINR sounds natural to me because I mentally parse it as "at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research", and at the institute needs the article. However, if I think of the acronym as simply the name without expanding it out, then the article feels less needed. I noticed that I had the JINR more often than JINR, so I changed them all to the former; I'm open to changing them all to remove the article. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I see; it's the same for me. I mean, I'm not sure what should be done about this, just be aware something may be needed to be done (or not).--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• It would nevertheless transpire that -- I don't really understand this phrasing. To be fair, I had not even known the word "transpire" before I read it now, but having learned its meaning, I still don't see what you're trying to say. "It would come known that this first experiment aimed at element 114 may actually have been the first observation of an isotope of element 113" ??
  • I've removed these words and changed it to "This first experiment aimed at element 114 may actually have resulted in the first observation of an isotope of element 113", as I don't think it adds much to the article in hindsight. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's much better!--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• the Joint Working Party [...] meets -- would it be correct to say it actually assembles rather than just meets? I get it each time JWP meets, the staff is renewed?
  • Yes. I agree with your logic and hence I've changed it to "assembles". Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Cool--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• the thallium target was weak -- I assume you are talking about strengths of materials but I had raised my eyebrow prior to making that assumption. A rephrasing wouldn't hurt
  • Changed to "the thallium target was physically weak". Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I've added a wikilink to Strength of materials.--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• perhaps due to either the formation of metastable states along the chain -- reader-friendliness could be enhanced. Try something like "perhaps because either one of the intermediate decay product was a metastable isomer"
  • I've rewritten this. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The rewriting is fine except for this part: "these nuclides would reach the known isotopes." I mean, it is understandable but sounds somewhat too smart, see what I mean? I'd suggest "these nuclides would turn to the known isotopes"; this isn't perfect (I think) but at least it's more of the neutral encyclopedic tone. (I really hope you see what I mean there, I'm having some difficulties explaining it. I could elaborate on this, I'm just afraid I'd be rambling on and on)
• The JWP published its third report on elements 113–116 and 118 in 2011. -- had there been two reports on these elements already by then?
  • Not for all of them, no. I meant that this was the third report cumulatively (the first was on 110–112; the second on 110–112, 114, 116, and 118; the third on 113–116 and 118; and the fourth on 113, 115, 117, and 118). However, I also agree with you that the numbering is not terribly important, and so I've removed it. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Vanderbilt University -- it is certainly worth mentioning what country they are based in
  • Added (together with a rewrite). Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I like it.--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Lund University -- some introduction, even if not a full three-level one, is welcome
  • Added "in Lund, Sweden". Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Normally I would suggest to go for a three-level introduction since you do name the town but I won't insist here. Sweden is a unitary country and it is somewhat small (I think it's population that matters most), unlike Germany, Russia, Japan, China, or the U.S. Not that I advise against it, though.--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• The JINR considered the awarding of element 113 to RIKEN unexpected -- I like how you reworked this bit (no action required)
  • Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You're very welcome--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• The fourth JWP -- still don't see why this numbering is so important
  • Removed, as above. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Good, but there's also fourth JWP report and third JWP and fourth JWP -- and maybe there's more. There is no need to reference the numbering given that the first report of these did not even have anything to do with element 113--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I think I've caught and removed all the numberings now. Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• After the publication of the JWP reports -- this one is good, too (no action required)
  • Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Still very welcome--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• and the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research -- perhaps, and GSI? We have already introduced the institute and this acronym by now and the institute was called differently then
  • Removed "Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research". Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Great--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• including the awarding of element 113 to RIKEN and the acceptance of the discoveries of elements 115 and 117 on the grounds of cross-reactions, the consensus was that the conclusions would hold up if the work was redone -- so why did it even merit concern if the results are going to be the same? You can answer in a few broad words like "including the technical details of the awarding of element 113 to RIKEN and the acceptance of the discoveries of elements 115 and 117" except in better language
  • It seems to me that these things meriting concerns are exactly what was criticised in the Lund–GSI 2016 study, but I annoyingly cannot find a statement that it was exactly that for E113 (though it can hardly be anything else, given that if E115 and E117 would not have been accepted because of a questionable cross-bombardment, then the Dubna claim to E113 would not have been accepted either). Thus I have changed it to "However, after a survey of many physicists, it was determined that while many physicists felt that while the Lund–GSI 2016 criticisms of the JWP report were well-founded, the conclusions would hold up if the work was redone, and hence the new president, Bruce McKellar, ruled that the proposed names should be released in a joint IUPAP–IUPAC press release." Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • This is a fine wording. I like it.--R8R (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A very interesting read overall. I will look at how you acted in response to my previous comments later.--R8R (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One more question. Did the JWP (or is it just "JWP"?) recognize that element 113 had been synthesized in Dubna or not, even if only after it was synthesized in Japan? We clearly know the recognized element 115 and 117 as having been synthesized in Dubna, so I'd expect them to recognize 113 as such as well, but the text clearly states, "The fourth JWP (this numbering, again) considered that the JINR–Livermore collaboration did not meet the discovery criteria."--R8R (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The key is discovery criteria: the JWP certainly recognised ²⁹³117 and all its daughters (which must include ²⁸⁵113), but because that postdated the RIKEN result and its confirmation it wasn't considered a discovery. I've tried to make this a bit clearer. Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reread the part 1 of the review of this section and I am pleased with your responses to all my comments but one: I still it would be cool to say a phrase like "Morita wanted to name the element specifically after a Japanese name of Japan." It would be great to show this was actually very important for him. This will also be interesting to read for anyone, many people relate to the feeling of patriotism. Not to mention this is actually very relevant to the subsection on naming. You once showed me a Japanese source (unfortunately, I don't remember if it was in English or I had to Google Translate Japanese; probably the former) you could reference on thisR8R (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll look for the source. I think the reasonable way to do it would be to put it before the proposal itself, as in "Nevertheless, after the recognition, Morita wanted to name the element specifically after a Japanese name of Japan. In March 2016, Morita proposed the name "nihonium" to IUPAC, after one of the two Japanese pronunciations for the name of Japan: Japan (日本, nihon)" – except that now we're mentioning the name of Japan in two consecutive sentences and it sounds horribly repetitive. So I'll think about this and hopefully have a solution by tomorrow. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, except if I were to write this, I'd try to go fancy about it and say something like, "Nevertheless, after the recognition, Morita wanted to honor his home country; various names were considered but he insisted the element should be specifically after a Japanese name of the country." (that's actually engaging and interesting to read, don't you think? How my writing engages you into the story is perhaps its best and most characteristic trait, or maybe I'm being too bold here but at least that's what I like to think, and I highly recommend it to anyone, so... yeah, give it a try! I guess you'll want to try something like that, too, so just in case :)--R8R (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It was actually to thank the Japanese public support of this research, according to these two articles which I'll add tomorrow (I'm out of time for today). Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is also very interesting: "Group director Kosuke Morita, 59, told the assembled researchers, "I want to choose a name underscoring the fact that it's an element made in our country," and urged them to come up with suggestions. A leading candidate was "japonium," which would enable non-Japanese to easily make the connection with Japan. But the suggestion was dismissed over its association with "Jap," which is seen as a slur against Japanese. Other suggestions were made but after about an hour, they settled on "nihonium."" [1] Also, what kind of support are we talking about?--R8R (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I've added some text to try to address your points. I'd still like to find a good way to introduce how the failed Japanese attempts on elements 75 and 93 inspired RIKEN to try for element 113 with the reasoning of "third time lucky". ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

What you already have is good enough for me anyway. Don't let this comment discourage you from trying to find the words for that if there is a source for that, however!--R8R (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have started to doubt the public support even more: "“Our research rarely grabs the attention of people,” he [Morita -- R8R] said." [2] Maybe this support is somehow related to what happened in Fukushima? "It [the message announcing "nihonium" -- R8R] also expressed hope that the naming would help recover some of the pride and confidence in the country’s science that had been lost during the Fukushima nuclear disaster." [3], also this is mentioned here: https://www.asianscientist.com/2016/06/topnews/element-113-nihonium-nh-riken-kosuke-morita/" -- this really sounds more like it, you may want to include this.--R8R (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: it looks like we're only this last thing away from being ready for an FAC, so I thought I'd use your attention. You could probably get there the day you see this message and I think the FAC should be a success, so it's a shame we're not there yet. Would you look at the issue once more?--R8R (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Thanks for the ping! I think the public support referred to is financial; RIKEN is almost entirely government-funded. I think you also suggested asking at the Graphics Lab for a reworking of the decay chain graphic, so it's not quite one last thing, I think. ^_^ I've had a busy week, but I think I can get to this tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Actually, no, a citation was already there that included it. Since "public support" in those words was already cited, I've added some words about this: "recover lost pride and trust in science among those who were affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster". Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I thought I had checked everything before saying that "last thing" part, but there had to be something I'd missed :) Also thanks for clarifying the public support bit; please do mention that in the text so not only myself, but also all readers benefit from this knowledge. Nice to know you were going to go for it; I'm getting visibly excited for this.--R8R (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

And we will of course have to cover this as well.--R8R (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not do it now.

• p-block transactinide element -- WP:SEAOFBLUE
• placed in group 13, although it has not been confirmed to behave as the heavier homologue to thallium in that group -- is "in that group" really needed?
• Nihonium was first reported to have been created in 2003 by a Russian–American collaboration at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, and in 2004 by a team of Japanese scientists at RIKEN -- it would make sense to introduce the teams similarly, but the JINR is in "Dubna, Russia," while RIKEN is someplace indefinite
• In December 2015 -- both dates by now only featured the years, consistency throughout the lead is advised
• Nihonium is calculated -- this sounds strange to me. Is known is fine, sure, but is calculated? I'd use has been calculated

Fine otherwise.--R8R (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed all of these. Regarding your second point: I originally added "in that group" because I was not sure if all readers would immediately know that thallium is in group 13, but since we list all the stable group 13 elements soon afterwards I think it's OK to delete it. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the JWP recognized the fact of synthesis of element 113 in Dubna, it would be good to say the team in Dubna synthesized it, too, only too late to count as discoverers. Perhaps something like "the JWP assigned the discovery priority to RIKEN as they were able to undoubtedly demonstrate synthesis a year before the Russian--American team in Dubna"--R8R (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As recognition of E115 and E117 implies recognition of a later synthesis of E113, I've changed some text so that it now reads "In 2015, the IUPAC–IUPAP Joint Working Party recognized the element and assigned the priority of the discovery and naming rights for the element to RIKEN, as it judged that the RIKEN team had persuasively demonstrated that their observations originated from element 113 before the JINR team managed to do so for theirs." (I'm not sure if I should introduce all the institutes at once in the lede; a few sentences previously, I mentioned that the Russian–American collaboration created E113 at the JINR in Dubna, so this is accurate, but I'd rather say it in a better way.) Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You may recall from the history of dubnium that technically LBL managed to demonstrate synthesis two months before JINR did but JINR got credited as well anyway. I think it is important to show somehow there is a long period of time between the Japanese confirmation and any possible Russian--American confirmation that sets them apart.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I've changed it to "In 2015, the IUPAC–IUPAP Joint Working Party recognized the element and assigned the priority of the discovery and naming rights for the element to RIKEN, as it judged that the first persuasive observations of element 113 from JINR had come six years after those from RIKEN" (as the JWP recognised the 2004 RIKEN experiments and the 2010 JINR experiments as being the first confirmed for each): is that better? Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is great, just add something featuring "six years" to the body as well.--R8R (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the JWP stated that priority of proof of discovery was more important than priority of discovery itself for determining the actual discoverers, that's in their criteria. So perhaps six years isn't correct?--R8R (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I dunno: the 2010 experiment at Dubna was repeated in 2012 according to our tennessine article and 2013 according to the JWP. The former date would have made it contemporarous with the RIKEN confirmation. I am really not sure what the actual dates are as such, except that the recognised JINR experiments must postdate the recognised RIKEN ones. I'll look around a bit more and revert "six years" for now. Double sharp (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

From the JWP report on transfermium elements I can recall that they clearly stated what exactly they recognized as a discovery. For instance, the April 1970 LBL report on dubnium was very convincing and required no further proof, and the June 1970 JINR report resolved all remaining questions (the February and May experiments were not yet convincing) and thus these two, so close in timing, shared the priority. Did the JWP not release publicly their analyses of each experiment this time?--R8R (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

They did: it's all in the report. Nevertheless, there is some difficulty because the text they wrote on Z = 113 does not mention the 2010 Dubna experiments producing element 117, but only refers to the 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments producing element 115. The clincher in both situations was the ability to measure Z: RIKEN could do so via cross-bombardments, but the JINR chemistry experiments trying to identify Db as a daughter of E115 were not considered conclusive enough. On Z = 115 and Z = 117, they only mention the 2010 (confirmed in 2012 and 2013) experiments from the JINR on E117 when awarding credit for the discovery. 2012 would make it contemporarous with the RIKEN confirmation of E113, but the 2012 confirmation is only listed on E117 and not on E115; the 2013 confirmation is on both. So it could either be 2004 vs. 2010 or 2012 vs. 2013 that is the point here. Strangely, on Z = 113 the final assessment does not seem to consider the production of this element at Dubna at all, even though it must have been produced as a daughter of E115 and E117, and those are considered for the final assessments of Z = 115 and Z = 117! The closest I can get is Morimoto's presentation, which includes a mention of "Why RIKEN? Why not Dubna?" He gives 2013 as the confirmation date for the Dubna experiments, and writes that "RIKEN team fulfilled the criteria, just before Dubna and USA team". However, since he was on the RIKEN team, I am not sure that he is a reliable source for IUPAC's reasoning. I find myself quite in agreement with the Dubna team saying "To us, this is somewhat unexpected decision. Moreover, in the IUPAC practice, there are enough precedents of acknowledging 'joint' priority..." Anyway, I think we may not be able to do much better than the current wording because of this. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, I was reading that very report and it seems we look at it similarly. I'll want to check the numbers again just to make sure. Could you reflect the conclusions of the JWP in the article a bit more carefully so that the common reader is not puzzled as I was?--R8R (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I've rewritten the paragraph to simply give what the JWP report says, without trying to add their reasoning for not giving the E117 collaboration shared credit for E113 (since none is given). Double sharp (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

implying simultaneous acceptance that element 113 had been produced as their daughter -- from my reading of the report, I got it they had not recognized Dubna's 113 in that decay chain because the decay data of element 115 was apparently congruent enough (so elements 115 and 117 were recognized) but the decay data of element 113 was not. I don't think this was actually implied.--R8R (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, they mentioned both elements 113 and 115 under Z = 117: "A convincing case in cross reaction producing ²⁸⁹115 and ²⁸⁵113 from both ⁴⁸Ca + ²⁴⁹Bk and ⁴⁸Ca + ²⁴³Am is demonstrated in the top of the previous table. Thus, the 2010 [17, 18], 2012 [19] and 2013 [39] jointly with 2013 [21] collaborations of Oganessian et al. have met the Criteria for discovery of the elements with atomic numbers Z = 115 and Z = 117." (In fact, since it is then not implied but actually stated, I've changed it to simultaneously accepting that element 113 had been produced as their daughter.) Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's settled then.--R8R (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm closing the PR now and going for the FAC. Thanks to Galobtter and R8R for all their helpful comments! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)