Talk:Positronium negative ion

First suggestions

@Albertone77 Please:

1. Delete the beginning title "Positronium negative ion"
2. Add the footnotes at least at the end of every paragraph.

Good work.

Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer 1

Hi there, Nice work, I like your article, but in history section i found that efficiency is in link form, which might not be needed. Thanks Mahno2000 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer 2

Thank you for the well done article! Dani1998ele (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Review 3

Great article and very interesting topic. SierraNevata (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up after the recent revision

Hi Albertone77, thank you for revising the draft. I compared the earlier version with the current one, and the article has clearly improved. The lead is now more neutral and more accessible. In particular, the earlier wording such as "of particular interest", "crucial step", and "essential ingredient" has been replaced with more factual language. The lead now explains what the positronium negative ion is before moving to its use in three-body physics and positronium beams.

Several of the specific issues raised in the AfC comment have also been addressed. The statement about the difficulty of producing the ion has been changed to a more concrete reference to low production efficiency and short lifetime. The sentence about the Schrodinger equation is now sourced and more carefully worded. The incorrect "nearly-zero outgassing" statement has been removed. The production section is also less promotional than before, especially after replacing phrases such as "new way", "strongly reduced", and "crucial" with more neutral wording.

The article is therefore much closer to a usable encyclopedic draft. I think only a few essential issues still need attention before resubmission:

• Please remove the remaining peacock or vague expressions. Phrases that may still need revision include "standard benchmark", "technological advancement", "high-efficiency", "high-quality", "large-scale experimental research", "primary research fields", and "controlled positronium beams". Some of these may be acceptable if directly supported by the cited sources, but otherwise they should be replaced with more specific wording.
• Please make the lead slightly more useful for non-specialist readers. It defines the ion, but it could briefly add that it is unstable, decays by electron-positron annihilation, was first observed experimentally in 1981, and is studied both for quantum-electrodynamics tests and for positronium-beam production. That would make the lead a better summary of the whole article, per MOS:LEAD.
• Please check the spin-average calculation in the "Energy levels and annihilation" section. If a reliable source directly presents that comparison for ${\text{Ps}}^{-}$, cite that source at the sentence introducing the calculation. If the comparison is your own explanatory calculation from separate positronium decay rates, it should be removed or rewritten, because it may be seen as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
• Please remove or justify the sentence about antihydrogen gravity. The statement "To date, the Earth's gravity constant for antimatter systems has been measured for antihydrogen" is interesting, but it is not directly about the positronium negative ion. Unless a source about positronium beams explicitly uses this as context, it may look like off-topic synthesis and should be omitted.
• Please rely on review sources for broad claims. The Physics Reports review and the European Physical Journal D review are good candidates for general statements about the field. Primary papers should mainly be used for specific observations, measurements, or demonstrations, such as Mills's observation, photodetachment, decay-rate measurements, or particular production methods.
• Please do a final copyedit before resubmission. Examples include adding a space in "${\text{Ps}}^{-}$has", changing "bound two electrons" to "bind two electrons" or "capture two electrons", fixing "photo-detachment.", and making wording such as "as it happens for" more idiomatic.

After these final edits, you should resubmit the draft through AfC (if the draft page shows a "Submit for review" or "Resubmit" button, use that. If the button is not visible, open the draft in source editing mode and add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft. When the draft shows the yellow "Review waiting" box, it has been resubmitted). Please do not move the page manually to mainspace or recreate it by copy-paste; let the AfC reviewer handle acceptance. I'm confident the article may be successfully admitted. Good work. Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)