Talk:Radon

format

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 19:37, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 18:59, 10 July 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Radon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Radon the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

Good Article Nomination

While this article does have a good amount of relevant information, there are several places where references are needed to back up evidence, and as such, its not quite ready for GA status. Its not far off though, so I'm putting it on hold until these things can be fixed.

1. Bluelinks need to be added to the 'Applications' section.
2. More references need to be added for the more 'non-standard' knowledge, such as death potential in the lead paragraph, and most if not all of the Applications and History sections.
3. 'Radon therapy' section is already mentioned in 'Applications'; this only needs to be mentioned once.

Here is my generic GA review of the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Failed due to lack of progress with problems stated above. Smomo 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the Name Radon

Guys -

One thing. I was on Marie Curie's wiki page and it said that she named two elements - polonium and radium. In this article it says that someone else named radium. Who can verify?

An image of Radon for this article perhaps?

A few months ago, I stumbled across a website which provided images for some of the heavy actinide elements' images on Wikipedia. What I found on the website is an image of the element Radon. It seems like the gas was encased in a glass tube and there's only 1 reference at the bottom of the page, stating that the image was taken from a book. [1]http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/086Rn/Rn.htm

So I emailed the creator of the website - Mark Kness - about this image. He replied: "Looking at my cell[ul]ose-book version, I note the comment: 'Radioactive radon was placed on a background of zinc sulphide, thus causing it to slow with a yellow-green light'. The radon does seem to be enclosed in a glass tube. The green glow is from the ZnS, which is excited by the radiation from radon (and perhaps radon daughters), it is not directly from radon itself. I did not have anything to do with preparing this sample, so I can't really provide more details than that." And I was wondering if this image could be added to the infobox in the Radon article? SupercriticalXenon (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's almost certainly not coming with the right license to use it here, and if it doesn't even show radon itself then I don't see why we would want to add it. Sometimes there is just no good image of things. --mfb (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph is repetitively redundant.

Oof. Half-life of 3.8 days is said three times. Part of the decay chain of U-238 and Th-232 is said twice. Being very rare is said twice. Will be around for billions more years is said twice. Decay chain ending in lead is said three times. This carries into the second paragraph a bit where being a decay product of uranium is mentioned again. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Trimming

Aside from the additions over the years by people promoting different remediation practices, hormesis, etc., the sections on occurrence, health risks, and mitigation all seem unnecessarily large. They all have their own articles anyway, where much of this information is duplicated, so I will be trimming these sections in particular with prejudice. Reconrabbit 15:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Image?

The radon article still doesn't have an image of radon. However, i may have found a picture of radon. HAt 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What in that picture is radon? And what is the rest? We can only take pictures with suitable licenses anyway. --mfb (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

TBH I don't even believe that's radon, just look at it! Thats obviously a solid! HAt 13:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would assume, based on chemistry and the image, that the bubbles are the radon, as decay products being liberated from the solid. But assuming or analyzing someone else's novel image aren't really viable approaches for encyclopedia content. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also for your information the promethium(III) chloride page has an image that has the same source as the 'radon' picture. HAt 13:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A "non-free" image can be used even contrary to its license in extremely limited cases. That PmCl₃ image is documented as meeting Non-free content criteria. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)