Good articleLivermorium 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
DateProcessResult
October 1, 2014Good article nomineeListed
In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 8, 2011, and June 1, 2012.

'This is the first molecule to be studied in detail to display this phenomenon, dubbed "supervalent hybridization"'

edit

Not true! See Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 117, for studies of sd hybridisation in CaF2. Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

More about spin-orbit effects for H2X (X = Te, Po, Lv): http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2187001 Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Question about the discovery

edit

This article and those on the other superheavy elements talk about how they were discovered by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. I know the teams worked together, but was the element actually discovered at both facilities? Would you say radon was discovered in Canada because that's where Ernest Rutherford and Robert B. Owens were at the time? Squee3 (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Lv atoms were seen at JINR, but the Cm target necessary for their production was made at LLNL. (Same for the pairs Fl/Pu, Mc,Ts/Bk, and Og/Cf). Hence cooperation was necessary and both facilities receive credit. Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but the question is where it was discovered, not by whom. Squee3 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, it was certainly discovered in Dubna, then. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! That's the information I needed. Squee3 (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

But the things about Fr say that EN(Fr)>EN(Cs)

edit

So it's possible to be possible to make hydrogen-livermoride... Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just because Fr is more electronegative than Cs does not mean that Lv is more electronegative than Po. The two situations are different; for Fr 7s is relativistically stabilised, but for Lv 7p3/2 is relativistically destabilised. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Indeed, Lv is expected to be significantly more electropositive than Po. Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply