 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 979 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
| Submission declined on 16 September 2024 by Paul W (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 11 September 2024 by Ldm1954 (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to Declined by Ldm1954 56 days ago.
| |
| Submission declined on 2 August 2024 by SafariScribe (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Declined by SafariScribe 3 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 20 July 2024 by 97198 (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Declined by 97198 3 months ago. | |
Comment: Whole sections are devoid of supporting inline citations; others need additional citations (ideally, at least one per paragraph). Paul W (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: If the subject was a full-tenured professor, he is notable per WP:NPROF. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I will let someone else review this. Looking at the recent edits, no attempt has been made to demonstrate his notability. As said before, the element may be notable but that does not make a member of the team who found it notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: While discovery of an element is notable, that does not make the co-discoverer notable. I don't find evidence of a strong publication record or any major awards, both of which would prove notability. Without those I don't think there is any chance for a page in the English Wikipedia, our criteria are different. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This appears to be almost a verbatim Google translate of an article on him in the Spanish Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (October 2024 (Note that all the necessary citations are there, just not all of them are matched up properly.) |
Leon Owen Morgan (Oklahoma City, United States, October 25, 1919 – Austin, Texas, USA, July 29, 2002) was an american chemist and professor of chemistry at the University of Texas at Austin.[1][2] He co-discovered the chemical element americium along with Albert Ghiorso, Glenn T. Seaborg and Ralph A. James.[3][4][5]
He studied at the University of Oklahoma, receiving a bachelor's degree in 1941, and at the University of Texas at Austin, receiving a master's degree in 1942. During World War II, he worked under Seaborg on plutonium chemistry in the Manhattan Project in Chicago and in 1944 on the discovery of transuranic elements by irradiating plutonium at the cyclotron in Berkeley.[6][7]
- ^ "Chemistry Tree - Leon Owen Morgan". academictree.org. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
- ^ "Chemistry Tree - Leon Owen Morgan Family Tree". academictree.org. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
- ^ The Elements. PediaPress.
- ^ Jaffe, Bernard (2012-07-12). Crucibles: The Story of Chemistry from Ancient Alchemy to Nuclear Fission. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-14184-8.
- ^ United States Government Publications Monthly Catalog. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1949.
- ^ Communications, Emmis (February 1962). The Alcalde. Emmis Communications.
- ^ Hoffman, Darleane C.; Ghiorso, Albert; Seaborg, Glenn T. (2000-01-21). Transuranium People, The: The Inside Story. World Scientific. ISBN 978-1-78326-244-1.