Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benzene/archive1

Benzene
This a nomination, but most certainly not a self-nom. I know little about chemistry, even less about benzene, however I stumbled across this article totally by accident (I pressed Random Article!) and, having read it through, feel this article has just about everything I could want in an article about an element/molecule/chemical. It has the "sciency" stuff (I know, sounds like a bad shampoo advert), the history, uses, methods of extraction, health risks, reactions, and has a reasonable set of references and external links. Although admittedly it has no photos, there are images, and at least there are no copyright issues. It is stable, uncontroversial and not too long. My one reseravtion is the shoryt lead, but I do not think that is enough not to nominate it. Finally (and I know this is not part of the FAC criteria, but I think it is worth mentioning still), the Chemistry section of FA is a little... anaemic. It currently has 8 articles. Let's make it 9 with this excellent example of how science on Wikipedia SHOULD be done. Batmanand 09:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Object—Nowhere near comprehensive; too short; needs editing, although not too badly written. Why isn't this on the peer review list instead? Tony 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object-Although I agree that the Chemistry section strongly needs more FA articles, I would recommend the Benzene article to a peer review process first. There are definitely good points in it, but also sufficient opportunities for improvement. The article is also part of the Chemicals WikiProject and its current status there is merely B-Class. Better alternatives can be found on the List of A-Class articles of that WikiProject. Wim van Dorst 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC).
 * Object at present: this is a good article but not quite there yet. I would welcome it going to Peer review to get some comments from the wider community on Chemistry articles, but this is not the best article to have come out of WP:Chem. Physchim62 20:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, but it's on its way. It doesn't have full FA quality now, although it certainly is an above-average chemistry article. We should get a peer review first. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - I agree with the above. I think that sometime soon we at WP:Chem should put another article through the sort of intense peer review that hydrochloric acid had.  But this is certainly cloase and a good potential FA, thanks for pointing it out, Batmanand! Walkerma 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)