Talk:Henry Moseley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. This article is supported by the Military work group. More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Fluidly-written article, but needs an experienced editor specialising in physics to sort through the technical jargon, as the reader is unlikely to know much about atomic numbers. I would classify this as an article needing work on as a priority, given his important work on the field. Edofedinburgh 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (edit) An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. WikiProject Chemistry (Rated start-Class) Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Fluidly-written article, but needs an experienced editor specialising in physics to sort through the technical jargon, as the reader is unlikely to know much about atomic numbers. I would classify this as an article needing work on as a priority, given his important work on the field. Edofedinburgh 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Physics      (Rated Start-Class) Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh Fluidly-written article, but needs an experienced editor specialising in physics to sort through the technical jargon, as the reader is unlikely to know much about atomic numbers. I would classify this as an article needing work on as a priority, given his important work on the field. Edofedinburgh 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has an assessment summary page.

According to Modern Physics by Tipler & Llewellyn, Moseley predicted three elements: Z = 43, 61 and 75. If this is true, the wikipedia article is misleading, almost lying.

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your contributions. Wikipedia is a wiki, and anyone- including you! - can edit nearly any article, at any time, by clicking the Edit This Page link at the bottom of the article. You don't even need to login, although there are several reasons why you might want to. So, feel free to make this correction yourself! If you are unsure about how to edit a page, try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. - Fennec 14:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but I still can't know if Tipler is right. In order to increase the probability of a correct article, a little more research should be done. Or what to you think?

According to [1], he predicted three (which seems to be using the Heilbron book as a source, which is authoritative if true). This [2] says it was four elements but doesn't give a citation. If the Heilbron book says three, then I'd say it is probably three... --Fastfission 18:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In his original articles, which I have added a link to on the page, Moseley stated that there were three, and only three, gaps in the periodic table (as then known) between aluminum and gold. Mendeleev had previously predicted the existence and properties of technetium, and Bohuslav Brauner had predicted the existence of promethium, so Moseley confirmed their predictions, made one other prediction, and showed that there were no additional gaps in the elements up through gold. --Chuck Y 19 Aug 2005

I have the 1966 Heilbron article, which says 4 elements. But wups, there is also Moseley's paper with the updated chart and list of elements, at the end: [3]. In the chart, Moseley clearly predicts 43 (Tc), 61 (Pm), and 75 (Re), just as he says in his text, but he doesn't clearly predict 72 (Hf). What happens instead, is there's some mixup in the 4 elements 69-72, which Moseley gets all wrong. His sequence for these is Tm I, Tm II, Yb, Lu (that is, he calls for two "thuliums" Tm I and II as being a mixture of two substances, not one), and then Yb and Lu. He doesn't clearly indicate this means that two thuliums (two separate substances as he says) means there's only one thulium plus one yet-unnamed element in this pack, even according to his own chart and data. So that is the last implied gap thus for an unnamed element, but he doesn't know where it should go. Probably he would have put it in one of those thulium slots, as 69 or 70. In fact, the correct order here, from 69-72 is Tm, Yb, Lu, and THEN the yet-undiscovered element 72, Hf. I'll re-read Heilbron to see if Moseley had this sorted out, before he died. But in the meantime, that's how it stands from what I can see in his paper. As it stands, it's Mosely's data that imply 4 undiscovered elements between aluminum and gold, even while the author interprets it only calling clearly for 3. SBHarris 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Tag

All the info for this article is taken from the Heilbron article and book, and from the two chem bios referenced. It would be somewhat tedious to go through the entire article and insert page numbers from these, for every statement. That's not really Wikipedia standard. Opinions as to what to do when a Wiki is a condensatin of a few sources, but these are very authoritative ones? And few others exist? SBHarris 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing the template. If the article is already based on an authoritative biography, there is no point. Adding the page number at the end of each statement would be annoying. --Itub 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)