Talk:Bismuth
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bismuth has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Notice
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:25, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 21:13, 4 July 2005).
Re: Disputed
When it says "Among the heavy metals, it is the heaviest and the only non-toxic". I think it means the "heaviest AND ALSO non-toxic" of metals.
Gold is heavy but has an atomic number of 79 and Bismuth has an atomic number of 83, which means (again...) that bismuth is the heaviest of non-toxic metals.
Re: Re: Disputed
OK. Gold IS a toxic heavy metal. The only problem is it is hard to find and make compounds of gold that can be assimilated by the body.
The word 'heavy' in this context usually refers to the atomic number, not the density of the element. Elements like Seaborgium are referred to a 'Superheavy' It might be more meaningful to use the term 'heaviest nucleii', although polonium might be considered here as a metal which is heavier, but it it not stable so the radioactivity might kill someone before heavy metal poisoning does.
Tungsten is a heavy metal, but is also not toxic (at least not much). I don't know about the others. Most of the others are kind of rare so although they are heavy metal poisons it would be hard to encounter toxic compounds.
GA Reassessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is a GA from 2012. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone head and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141Pr 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to start work on saving the GA tomorrow. I may remove or refactor statements with citation neededs if I feel they are unnecessary. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are no citation needed tags anymore as they have all been fixed by User:Materialscientist. Unless you can point out any other problems, I think we should close this reassessment as a keep. If the fact that it is an old GA is the only issue you have, then a lot of elements may need to undergo GARs. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the article to some extent. Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Disruptive editing and poorly sourced content from IP 206.72.231.194 on 1 July 2024.
My IP address was unblocked in mid-August. Just letting you know that there was this IP address called 206.72.231.194 adding poorly sourced abundance ranks in the occurrence section. This page should been protected for a few months. If my IP address was unblocked, I could’ve requested semi-protection for page “Bismuth” for about a month. My IP address was blocked at that time, so I couldn’t request semi-protection. It turned out that the problem was solved without semi-protection. 206.72.231.194 Only made two edits on page “Bismuth”. 2603:8080:D03:89D4:74A2:9D9F:8701:DBDB (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)