# Talk:Bohrium

I (as a Russian) suspect Russians/Germans suggested the name Nielsbohrium to the element not only "to signify", but because Rissians drop most Latin endings in most Latin-based names, and totally change some, so "Boron" in Russian is undestinguishable from "Bohr" (ru:Бор). Latin "-um" in the element names is usually not dropped but transformed, usually to "-iy". Two unrelated elements called "Bor" and "Boriy" would be very confusing. 64.131.250.74 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome, this. But then again the Russians may try something special for Bohrium, after all there is a special sign ю which is very suitable for the prps. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And the situation in Polish is even worse because the Latin termination -um is always dropped in case of chemical elements, so we have "bor" and "bohr", which are pronounced identically, so far :( Pittmirg 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittmirg (talk • contribs) 
They're not supposed to be pronounced identically. From the source: „Wymowa nazw pochodzących od nazwisk powinna być zgodna z wymową nazwisk uhonorowanych w ten sposób uczonych, nazwę pierwiastka 107 powinno wymawiać się razem z literą "h", tak aby odróżnić go od pierwiastka boru (B). ... bohr, żeby pisownią silniej odróżnić go (jako bohrium) od boru (jako borum); ponadto wprawdzie tlenek borium jest całkiem do przyjęcia, to nieaprobowalna jest forma boriumek (bo borium jest rzeczownikiem rodzaju nijakiego, a przyrostek -ek zdrabnia tylko rzeczowniki męskie!)” (TL;DR, if I understand this correctly: the h is pronounced, and grammatical gender will take care of the compounds.) Normally we don't consider names in other languages in the English Wikipedia articles, but given that this sort of situation was the reason "nielsbohrium" was originally proposed instead of "bohrium", this may be worth mentioning here in this special case. Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a similar situation in German, where boron is called "Bor" and spelled exactly the same as "Bohr".--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The beginning is decently polished. That part is GA-worthy. If I rewrote the Chemical properties section and added physical and atomic properties it would be comparable to the Hs article in current quality. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. There is not so much to say about Bh, because it's not in such an exalted nuclear region as Hs, Cn, and Fl. Bh has been called a superheavy element, not because it is really impressively stable (the original usage Fricke reported in the 1970s), but because the fact that it exists at all proves that something is going on here (the "shoal of deformed nuclei" around Hs). Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bohrium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am giving this article a GA Review.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Review on hold until referencing issues are cleaned-up: Ref #26 has gone dead, Ref 10-File Not Found, Ref 18 connection timed out
@Shearonink:: Added archiveurl for ref 26, ref 10 and 18 have DOI, so URL is not necessary and the URL can be deleted. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Shearonink:  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be no webarchive/Wayback Machine URLs for Refs 10 & 18...  (I just ran a Wayback tool on Ref #10 and the machine that serves the file is down right now.)  It bothers me that these two references turn up in so many sources but the actual text reminds somewhat inaccessible to Wikipedia's general readership.
ResearchGate has the full text for reference 10, which I have added a link to, but unfortunately not for reference 18. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
On my last pass reading the article, I noticed that there are two redlinked parameters in the references: Ref 21 & Ref 22 both have "chapter= ignored" notices - please fix these. Help:CS1 errors gives instructions on how.
@Shearonink: Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This review is on hold pending fixing 2 reference parameter issues
Congrats, it's a GA!

In {{Infobox bohrium}}, the |phase= is missing so it defaults to "unk phase". Could someone add the right phase? (a source is present). DePiep (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, it was supposed to say solid. Fixed now. Complex/Rational 18:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)