Uranium is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Uranium is part of the Actinides series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted September 29, 2014 Good topic candidate Promoted August 5, 2023 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:Vital article Elements Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Mining High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

I was wondering why Uranium is NOT ranked among the top 1000 vital articles altough it seems to be in excellent condition. Oil, Gas, Coal is but not Uranium. Although it is a major Energy source in many countries. I don't know yet how this is decided so it might be a noob question but I'd love to see the reasoning. For the ranking see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Current_total_(1,001_articles)

EnergyIntel (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium is a level four vital article, and nuclear power is a level three vital article like coal. CassandraRC7 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't uranium show up naturally under a black light, or is that just for Uranium glass? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium itself is not fluorescent, but glass with uranyl nitrate in it is. CassandraRC7 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The description in the image alt-text says the gloves are brown, but they're orange. Was whoever wrote this colorblind or have I stumbled on another "gold dress" scenario? There's also a minor typo. I would fix all that myself, but I don't know how to edit that text. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. The original nominator at FAC has not edited in years, the article has not been updated and has not kept up with standards, the readable prose size is 40% larger than the version that passed FAC (meaning there is a good deal of unvetted content), and I'm leaving a notice that a Featured article review is needed at WP:FARGIVEN. Reviewing this version:

• There are several unaddressed items on this talk page.
• There is MOS:SANDWICHing and a general jamup of images.
• There is considerable text that has not been updated since the 2006 FAC, sample only: It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of uranium exists in ore reserves that are economically viable at US$59 per lb of uranium,[76] while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction).[77] Prices went from about $10/lb in May 2003 to $138/lb in July 2007. This has caused a big increase in spending on exploration,[76] with US$200 million being spent worldwide in 2005, a 54% increase on the previous year.[77]
• The Supplies section has been tagged as needing update for five years.
• There is uncited text.
• There are short choppy one-sentence paras, eg here.
• See also needs pruning.
• There are incomplete citations (all citations need a publisher, websites need a last access date)
• There is serious overlinking (you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to see dup links)
• There are WP:MEDRS issues, eg Uranium miners have a higher incidence of cancer. An excess risk of lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners, for example, has been documented and linked to their occupation.[52]
• There are dead links, eg "uranium". Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group, Inc.
• Cited to 2001 ... still true ? The gas centrifuge process, where gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) is separated by the difference in molecular weight between 235UF6 and 238UF6 using high-speed centrifuges, is the cheapest and leading enrichment process.[30]

Similar is found everywhere one looks; a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed here, along with prose checking and a MOS tuneup; this is just a starter list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page Gives way to much credit to Oppenheimer who hade little to do with much of the splitting of the atom, fusion, or the development of the a-bomb or the Maud/ Manhattan project.

Fact.

A team run by Ernest Rutherford & Marcus Oliphant split the atom.

It was Marcus Oliphant of Australia who was the main person responsible for the creation of the Manhattan project & the A-bomb.

“Oliphant also formed part of the MAUD Committee, which reported in July 1941, that an atomic bomb was not only feasible, but might be produced as early as 1943. Oliphant was instrumental in spreading the word of this finding in the United States, thereby starting what became the Manhattan Project. Later in the war, he worked on it with his friend Ernest Lawrence at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, developing electromagnetic isotope separation, which provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant

Ernest Rutherford

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

Also Australia has control of around 40% of the worlds supply of uranium.

I really think it’s important to be accurate on a page like this. 49.178.191.57 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Diuranium and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Diuranium until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We reproduce a rounded figure here from the 2013 CIAAW report, but the 2000 report (https://www.ciaaw.org/pubs/EXER-2000.pdf) included a more precise figure before rounding. I tried to edit the underlying wikidata entry but do not see the changes reflected here. Anomalistic (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gy Abeeb olasupo (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which metal is used for containers that store radioactive sources? Answer in words not symbols. Abeeb olasupo (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the references being answer.com? Seems cheesy and is rather indirect.

Uranium metal reacts with almost all non-metal elements (with the exception of the noble gases) and their compounds, with reactivity increasing with temperature.www.answers.com/uranium "uranium". Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (6th ed.). Columbia University Press. Archived from [http://www.answers.com/uranium the original] on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help)

As little as 15 lb (6.8 kg) of uranium-235 can be used to make an atomic bomb."uranium". Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group, Inc. Archived from [http://www.answers.com/uranium the original] on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help)

He named the newly discovered element after the planet Uranus (named after the primordial Greek god of the sky), which had been discovered eight years earlier by William Herschel.www.answers.com/uranium "Uranium". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. Archived from [http://www.answers.com/uranium the original] on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 15 January 2007. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help) --Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

urainum is found in most cheeses 86.13.252.226 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...and poses significant health threat and environmental impact." should be "...and poses a significant health threat..." or "...and poses significant health threats..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWEISS (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]