Talk:Radium

Radium is currently a Chemistry and materials science good article nominee. Nominated by Recon rabbit at 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Chemical element

Radium was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 4, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 15, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 26, 2022	Good article nominee	Not listed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 26, 2007, December 26, 2008, December 26, 2009, December 26, 2013, December 26, 2015, December 26, 2017, December 26, 2018, December 26, 2020, and December 26, 2022.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Formerly, around the 1950s, it was used as a radioactive source for ..." To "From the 1910s, it was used as a radioactive source for ..."

Reference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls Mhurrell1953 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) mhurrell1953[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A +1 oxidation state?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2299-4 Should I add the +1 oxidation state to the infobox for this article? It seems reasonable, since the radium in RaF gave away one electron to a fluorine. SupercriticalXenon (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physics beyond the standard model

Is the information in the article under Modern applications regarding radium's place in "new models" of physics due to breaking forces useful? It seems overly technical in relation to the rest of the article and the sources provided don't make much mention of radium in particular. Could be some kind of WP:SYNTH? Recon rabbit 19:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring error

"In the early history of the study of radioactivity, the different natural isotopes of radium were given different names..."

No, they were not - there was no way to separate them at that time.

Someone please fix this. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are assuming someone had a mixture of the different isotopes in a sample they knew to be the "same chemical element" and then separated them into the various isotopes. Instead, different isotopes come from different sources based on being products of different elements' decay-chains. And the isotopes might have different properties, such as different radioactivity. If I start with X and get Y that then has behavior Z and you start with A and get B that has behavior C, we might not know at first that Y and B are the same element. Thus there were substances known as "Actinium X", "Thorium X", and "Mesothorium 1" that turned out to be radium-233, 234, and 238, respectively. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radium/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that the infobox image (Radium226.jpg) is misleading, because I'm not sure if we can directly see any Radium in the first place there? The viewer will think that the piece shown is Radium, but it is not. Maybe it is better to leave it without an image, or to use the "Radium-226 radiation source" image instead. The Radium226.jpg could be used later in the article. In any case, it needs a proper caption explaining what can be seen.
- I'm not certain about the provenance of the image. Working on figuring out how to change the caption.
  - If we believe the description provided by the uploader, you are seeing Ra electroplated on Cu. So the visible part would be the radium, which makes sense as it does not show the colour of copper. This would be similar to the picture of Tc that we use, which is Tc-plated Au. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When radium decays, it emits ionizing radiation as a by-product, which can excite fluorescent chemicals and cause radioluminescence. – But isn't that the case for any ionizing radiation? The fluorescence and radioluminescence are not specific for radium, so why mention it here (and not other effects, like health effects)?
- These properties are particularly important to the history of radium. Relatively few other elements that emit ionizing radiation were used for this property. Its toxicity is mentioned immediately afterwards (with an added note on why it's so toxic).

What are "Radium watch hands"? Needs link or explanation.
- Is "Watch hands coated with radium paint" more descriptive?

More soon.