Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
ComplexRational (talk | contribs)
Line 129: Line 129:
{{edit semi-protected|Uranium|answered=yes}}
{{edit semi-protected|Uranium|answered=yes}}
The final sentence in the first paragraph states that uranium can be eaten and is an extremely dense source of calories. This is patently false; uranium is toxic, the energy referred to here is the energy released upon fission and hence not usable by the human body, and the citation used says little if anything to support the statement. Please remove the sentence entirely. [[Special:Contributions/82.0.251.175|82.0.251.175]] ([[User talk:82.0.251.175|talk]]) 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The final sentence in the first paragraph states that uranium can be eaten and is an extremely dense source of calories. This is patently false; uranium is toxic, the energy referred to here is the energy released upon fission and hence not usable by the human body, and the citation used says little if anything to support the statement. Please remove the sentence entirely. [[Special:Contributions/82.0.251.175|82.0.251.175]] ([[User talk:82.0.251.175|talk]]) 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
:{{already done}} by {{u|Praseodymium-141}}; thanks for pointing this out. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:39, 11 December 2023

Former featured articleUranium 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.
Good topic starUranium 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
September 29, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
August 5, 2023Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

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 incorrect to credit Oppenheimer over truth.

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]

"Diuranium" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 (d) 01:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic weight should be 238.028906 ±0.00027, not 238.02891 ±0.0003

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]

Physics

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

Physics

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]

Answers.com?

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]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

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]

"...The development and deployment of these nuclear reactors continue on a global base as they are powerful sources of CO2-free energy." Should be "The development and deployment of these nuclear reactors continue on a global base as they are powerful sources energy." The fuel cycle of nuclear plants is not CO2-free. Mining, enrichment, and disposal are high CO2 pollutants. Only the operating part of the cycle is free of CO2 emissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6701:C850:DF0C:A1ED:F89C:E4BC (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

The final sentence in the first paragraph states that uranium can be eaten and is an extremely dense source of calories. This is patently false; uranium is toxic, the energy referred to here is the energy released upon fission and hence not usable by the human body, and the citation used says little if anything to support the statement. Please remove the sentence entirely. 82.0.251.175 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Praseodymium-141; thanks for pointing this out. Complex/Rational 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply