Materials Mid‑importance | |||||||
|
Rocks and minerals Low‑importance | |||||||
|
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 hardto find and make compounds of gold that can be assimilated bythe body.
The word 'heavy' in this context usually refers to the atomicnumber, not the density of the element. Elements like Seaborgium are referred to a 'Superheavy' It might be more meaningful to usethe term 'heaviest nucleii', although polonium might be consideredhere as a metal which is heavier, but it it not stable so theradioactivity 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 arekind of rare so although they are heavy metal poisons it wouldbe hard to encounter toxic compounds.
An NFPA 704 rating for Bismuth
Many other elements have an NFPA 704 rating on their articles. However, bismuth does not. I was able to find ratings here and here online. However, they contradict each other for the blue part of the NFPA 704 rating. Additionally, I am not completely sure that either source is reliable. Can anyone please help? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Bismuth
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)