Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC).

Metalloid

 * Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FA status as a culmination of its development (including peer review) through each of the classes from C (where I started on it, in June 2011) to B, B+ and GA, and thence to A, where it is now. Before posting this nomination I sought and responded to pre-FAC feedback, and reviewed and contributed to two FACs: KFC and Arthur W. Radford.

As to the topic itself, I like these quotes (which I didn't use in the article): 'Even the schizoid semimetals fall in a cluster, albeit neither rowwise nor columnar.' and 'It's not hard to imagine that the frontier between the metals and the nonmetals is occupied by weird atoms that are neither fish nor fowl.' (Parr 2000). Sandbh (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Parr C 2000, 'Metals, molecules, and ions', Chm 1311 Lecture for 8 June

Strong oppose. My original review comments here bloated into quite the teal deer as I tried to document all the ways this article fails to meet the FAC standards. I have now moved that entire section to the Talk page for two reasons. First, the FAC review FAQ suggests that articles so problematic as to warrant such massive reviews should instead simply be opposed and kicked down to a lower level process. And, second, because FAC nominators "are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly." This article has multiple lists, sometimes formatted poorly or in nonstandard ways; the nominator has argued repeatedly that these do not need to be replaced with, and are in fact superior to, the brilliant prose expected from a FA. The fundamental structure of the article is based on self-referential original research; the nominator asks us to IAR the OR policy. Accordingly, I see no reason to provide further review of this article at this time, and cannot support this nomination regardless of potential changes; any alterations so substantial as to remedy these concerns (unlikely as they seem to be) would mandate opposition on stability grounds, and so I urge the delegates to close this nomination at their convenience. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection from me to a closure. I'll see if I can progress this at a lower level. Sandbh (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Fixed Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Antimony-4.jpg: licensing tag doesn't appear to match that given on the source website. Same with File:Tellurium2.jpg and File:Aluminium-4.jpg
 * Fixed (I guess the source site upgraded the CC version) Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Juwi_PV_Field.jpg: tagged as CC "courtesy of JUWI Group", but no evidence of such - no source link, no OTRS tag
 * This is a problem - I would not use this image in an FA. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed (new image) Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Graphite2.jpg: link to original source?
 * Done. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Selenium_black_(cropped).jpg needs more specific source
 * Done. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Polonium.jpg: need to explicitly identify copyright holder - is it photographer or publisher? Also, are you absolutely sure there's no US government image of this element? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (i) The photographer should have transferred their copyright to the publisher (a standard procedure in publishing - otherwise the image could not be printed). Whether the copyright is currently with the publisher or with the author depends on the specific agreement between them - the terms vary among publishers, and even the same publisher may update the license. In other words, we can't know for sure, and can only assume the copyright is still with the LIFE Science Library. (ii) A few editors did their best in finding rare element images in various off-line books, so no, can never be absolutely sure, bu there is no immediate candidate for replacement. Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No guarantees that he would be willing to license them, but Theodore Gray (theodore  wolfram com) has a number of fairly nice images of polonium foil atop gold (and has a contact who can, at least at times, produce more). That's at least one potential source of an alternative polonium image. Otherwise, it might be worth the longshot to contact NRD, the most significant extant manufacturer of polonium-based anti-static brushes to see if they have an image of the element they'd be willing to release.  I do think it's likely there are government images, too ... somewhere, but I'll concede they may not be readily available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record: I asked Theodore Gray for permission to use one of his other images early on, and rec'd no reply; I conducted several .gov image searches for images of polonium, and these were all unsuccessful; and I asked the Oak Ridge National Laboratory about an image of polonium, since they apparently produce/sell the stuff, and rec'd no reply. I'll give NRD a try, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John
Oppose on prose, based on a preliminary sampling. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The more of the prose I looked at, the more problems I found. Let's say it needs a good copyedit to come within a mile of FA standard. I also noted (and greatly disliked) the embedded lists, and I am not happy with using an editor's original research (however diligent and fair) on another article as a source for this one. I think this would need some major work to be an FA. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. No need for sorry: business is business. I have a couple of observations.
 * Lists. Something I remain genuinely puzzled about is what seems to be a general aversion, expressed in this forum, to the use of lists in prose articles. What is the basis for that? There is nothing in Wikipedia guidance, to my knowledge, proscribing the (considered and careful) use of lists in prose articles, even in FA articles. Yes, I understand the prose in FA articles should be enagaging but that applies to the prose content of an article, not to the list content of a prose article (a list, of course, should still be properly constructed). Most of the books I have to hand on the topic of writing comment unremarkably on the use of lists. Franklin Quest style guide for business and technical communication, (1997) says that, 'Lists are increasingly important as a major aid for readers in interpreting and remembering information. Lists, headings, graphics and other emphasis tools are now essential in business and technical writing. These tools have now replaced the long, academic paragraphs of earlier times.' (p. 158). Another book, comprising the top ten papers published in Australian defence science over 50 years, includes papers incorporating the careful use of lists. A final book (Scientific writing = thinking in words, 2011) includes the careful use of lists. I also have The encyclopedia of chemistry (Supplement)(1958), which has some articles that include lists. As well, none of the seven Wikipedians who give advice about FA articles at WP:FACR proscribe the use of lists in FA articles. User Tony 1 goes so far as to say, 'Much encyclopedic and academic text comprises lists', whilst also advocating that lists need to be used with care.
 * Use of another article as a source. I think that in this specific case, use of list of metalloid lists, even if such use may appear questionable, improves Wikipedia. With respect, there is plenty of Wikipedia guidance along these lines, including WP:RAP; WP:IAR; and WP:5 ('Wikipedia does not have firm rules…Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception.') Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.