Talk:Europium
Add topic | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Europium was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
Information Sources
[edit]Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Europium. Data for the table WERE obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
Spectral lines of Europium in "light pollution"
[edit]A very recent spectrum of an (unidentified) city light polluted sky shows two emission lines in the visible spectrum at (approximately, I was doing this by eyeball alone :D ) 377 and 536 nanometres, respectively. These were tentatively identified as neutral Europium (Eu I). What would be the source of this? An additive in the fluorescent coating of mercury vapour lighting? An additive in other metal vapour or metal halide lighting? The glow of a television set very close to the point of observation? Some form of white-light LED lighting? Or is this more likely an erroneous identification?
Article review
[edit]It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements. Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Based on my first efforts I would say this may be a lost cause. I think we should aim for verifying the existing sources before worrying about reaching GA. Johnjbarton (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly I agree. This article is in an unfortunate state and several sections are far too short; the rest need to be re-checked and likely re-written. I can at least try to expand the etymology and hazards sections, but that doesn't address the larger issues elsewhere. -- Reconrabbit 15:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)