Talk:Bismuth

Elements High‑importance

	Chemistry portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Materials Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials 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.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Bismuth is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 12, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
February 5, 2023	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Information Sources:Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Bismuth. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Bismuth Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Notice[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

OK. Gold IS a toxic heavy metal. The only problem is it is hard to find and make compounds of gold that can be assimilated by the body.

The word 'heavy' in this context usually refers to the atomic number, not the density of the element. Elements like Seaborgium are referred to a 'Superheavy' It might be more meaningful to use the term 'heaviest nucleii', although polonium might be considered here as a metal which is heavier, but it it not stable so the radioactivity 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 are kind of rare so although they are heavy metal poisons it would be hard to encounter toxic compounds.

An NFPA 704 rating for Bismuth[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Bismuth[edit]

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ¹⁴¹ Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. ¹⁴¹ Pr 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article to some extent. Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.