Talk:Osmium

message: Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 11:27, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 22:25, 27 May 2005).
=== Information Sources ===
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Osmium. 
Additional text was taken directly from USGS Osmium Statistics and Information,  USGS Periodic Table - Osmium, 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 were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.
Information in the main article concerning the infobox's value of Osmium's bulk modulus -- the value from a (controversial?) 2002 experimental result on osmium's compressibility -- was taken from journal articles by H Cynn et al in Phys. Rev. Lett. (original paper) and by B R Sahu et al in Phys. Rev. B (example of refutation), both of which are cited in full in the main article's References section.
------
=== Talk ===
-----
In the informative picture on the left, there is the spot that details the (noble gas) form of it's electron configuration. The electron configuration provided is incorrect, it is shown as [Xe] 4f¹⁴ 5d⁶ 6s², while the correct configuration is [Xe] 6s² 4f¹⁴ 5d⁶. I would have fixed it myself but I'm not well versed in script editing, and I couldn't figure out how to edit the info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8F80:BBE0:44D3:6070:D2A:F6AE (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: -----
In the informative picture on the left, there is the spot that details the (noble gas) form of it's electron configuration. The electron configuration provided is incorrect, it is shown as [Xe] 4f¹⁴ 5d⁶ 6s², while the correct configuration is [Xe] 6s² 4f¹⁴ 5d⁶. I would have fixed it myself but I'm not well versed in script editing, and I couldn't figure out how to edit the info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8F80:BBE0:44D3:6070:D2A:F6AE (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: Is the part about the discoverers reliable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravoechonovember1 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "History" section has multiple reliable sources as references which you can use to verify the article's content.  What specifically are you concerned about?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Primarily that citation 31 links to a translated article that is written strangely and also that the page for William Hyde Wollaston should be edited toshow the discovery Bravoechonovember1 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Anybody care to take a stab at a less opaque wording than "This reaction is thermodynamically favorable at room temperature" in the final paragraph? rowley (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "thermodynamically favorable" is not familiar terminology to the average reader, but it has a specific chemical meaning that is covered at the high school level. The term is also used in other chemistry articles, such as the one on diamonds. SpugoV (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermodynamically favorable?