Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noble gas


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 July 2008.

Noble gas

 * Nominator(s): Gary King ( talk ), Nergaal, Itub, WikiProject Elements

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it has finally reached FA level. I haven't submitted an FAC in a month and a bit, so bear with me ;) Editors who have done MAJOR work to this article include Nergaal and Itub, among many others who helped do some copyediting, finding references, and making sure things look nice and tidy. This article is definitely the most technical I have worked on, by far, but I think we have done a great job with this. Gary King ( talk ) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment as co-nominator. I was hoping to finish filling in a couple of small gaps in the section on occurrence and production before the FAC, but I'll let the reviewers decide whether those gaps are an impediment to promotion or not. These gaps should be filled within a few days, which is well within the usual duration of the FAC process. In the meantime, any comments about the FA-worthiness of the existing content and presentation are of course welcome. Other than that, in my biased opinion, the article is accurate, comprehensive enough, and meets the other FA criteria as far as far as I can tell. The only aspect I can't comment on is the "prose brilliancy" requirement, which is too subjective for me to judge. --Itub (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gaps added? Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't noticed your question. I filled most of the gaps that I had in mind, but there are a couple left. 1) I'd like to expand a bit the part that describes the method of production. The Ullmann and Kirk-Othmer encyclopedias have very detailed descriptions of the industrial processes, with diagrams and everything. While we don't need such gory details, a couple more sentences would be good IMO. 2) Production figures. The problem here is that the values I've found are either for the USA only, or are too old, or are for helium only. I still haven't decided which ones to use. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) the most recent figures are perhaps the most useful; separate references may be used for each entry; try SciFinder if you have access to it. Nergaal (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * what makes http://www.decompression.org/maiken/home.htm a reliable source?
 * See this explanation for an explanation. Gary King ( talk ) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * citation is only used in the References section, and that is the case because the article uses harvnb which only works with citation. I believe recently promoted FAs also do this. Gary King</b> ( talk ) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that you're using citation that is the problem. It's that you're using citation ALONG WITH cite. One or the other, not both. If you want to stick with harvnb, you'll need to remove the cite templates and switch them over. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't cap my comments for me. Sandy asked me a while back to only cap long commentary. This isn't that long that a strike through won't work. Also, I'll note that somewhere someone left off an end font tag, because you've changed the font on the whole of the FAC page with something missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - font issue fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the applications section has little on Xenon as an anaesthetic, which phenomenon itself is considered as a major puzzle by some (like Sir Roger Penrose). Shyamal (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems comprehensive, well organised, written, cited and illustrated. My only observations below: Shyamal (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * somewhat confusing usage of "discovering" a "synthetic" element (and seems to imply serendipity) in A synthetic member of the group, ununoctium (Uuo), has also been discovered
 * The abundance of the noble gases in the universe decreases as their atomic numbers increase. I think this should be reworded to explicitly indicate that it is an observed trend rather than something that can be "controlled" - that atomic numbers could be altered.

Quick Comment - Please close and archive the peer review for this article. Giants2008 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment  I left a few comments at the peer review (sorry, a bit late) - have they been addressed? giggy (O) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, we closed it before you commented there. However, I will still take a look at your comments. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still a few unresolved issues at the PR (taking at random the point about Bobrow; second bullet point... plenty more though). You're welcome to reply to the comments on that page or to copy-paste them here and reply. —Giggy 02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have gotten to all the points. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support —Giggy 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment – While the column of elements in the lead looks great, it's not very informative when you consider the lack of a legend to explain the meaning of the colours and border styles used. Can some explanation of these be added? 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a fancy legend. I hope that helps! Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks great. :) {{ Nihiltres  | talk | log } } 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Support
 * Suggestion: why not move radon difluoride to radon fluoride, and remove the formula? jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support and commend
 * Well done, a beautiful, engaging, well-written, comprehensive article. I haven't enjoyed reading a science article so much in a long time, (but I still don't know what exactly helium replaces in breathing gases; perhaps it's just simply used:).
 * Dhould be more clear now.
 * Would instability be better than unstable nature''?
 * This sentence is a bit odd, Argon is the most plentiful noble gas on Earth, while krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds. There seems to be a false contrast here.
 * I can't wait to see this article on the main page. Graham Colm Talk 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both issues have been resolved. Thanks for both of your supports! Also, I'd like to see this article on the main page; it'd be a nice change from biographical, sports, and video game articles :) Hopefully it will educate a few aspiring chemists, too! Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - prose generally looks fine, a few things though:
 * The first sentence states that being a noble gas is equivalent to being in group 18, but later it says "...but preliminary experiments have shown that it may have similar chemical and physical characteristics to other noble gases, and may therefore be a noble gas without being a member of group 18." Clarification would be appreciated.
 * "Lord Rayleigh discovered that some samples of nitrogen from the air were of a different density than nitrogen that resulted from chemical reactions"
 * Nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence actually states "The noble gases are the nonmetallic, inert elements in group 18", so the "nonmetallic" and "inert" characteristics are required. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it can still be misinterpreted as "The noble gases are the elements in group 18, which are inert and nonmetallic", though it's meant to say "The noble gases are those elements in group 18 which are both inert and nonmetallic"? Can we come up with a phrasing that's not ambiguous (and not as awkward as my unambiguous example)? { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "the noble gases are elements in group 18 that are both inert and nonmetallic"? —Giggy 04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fitting in a mention that the group is on the periodic table in there would be difficult, though. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 04:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment – In the last paragraph of the history section, mentions of two superheavy elements are made. It is unclear in this paragraph what the relevances of these discoveries are to noble gases. For example, while Uuq is given as having potentially noble-gas-like properties, it is not commented on that this is not necessarily predicted by its atomic number (it's "eka-lead", not "eka-radon"); nor is it said why the synthesis of Uuo (which is predicted to be a noble gas by its atomic number) is a discovery. It would be helpful to an uninformed reader to understand why these discoveries are significant to the topic at hand. { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I now notice that some of this is described in the lead; nevertheless, can we please have more detail in the relevant section? { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support A well written article indeed. Some minor comments:
 * "The abundances of the noble gases in the universe decrease as their atomic numbers increase." This seems a little clunky to me although I am not sure how it could be improved.
 * "and it is also used as an anesthetic ..." Is the "it" here superfluous? I changed a few like this, then I realised on a technical article this could change meaning. Sorry if there has been any errors made.
 * "This localization of charge is accommodated by the fact that the fluorine atoms are highly electronegative." I am not a big fan of the use of "by the fact". Would "This localization of charge occurs because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative" or if that implies a causation where none exists, then "This localization of charge is allowed because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative".
 * Minor points all and support is given regardless. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the Support! Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 01:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment&mdash;Seems good overall. I just have a few comments:
 * "They have several important applications..." does this mean just Helium and Radon (as in the prior sentence), or all of the noble gases?
 * "The melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together" should include a value to avoid vagueness. For example, "within a range of 10 &deg;C or less."
 * The statement, "leading them to rarely react with other elements," seems odd somehow. Perhaps it is too anthropormorphic? Something like, "Hence they rarely react with other elements" would be more direct.
 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, done, and done. Pro or against FA? Nergaal (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward support. But I'd like to see after Ruslik's comments are resolved. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose. The article makes lots inaccurate statements, is not comprehensive and and is not well-written. Some examples (from the end of the article):

I support the article now. Ruslik (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Attention needed; see my edit summaries, mainly WP:NBSP, wikilinking, there are side-by-side images scrolling off of my screen in the "Compounds" and "Applications" sections, incorrect use of quotes vs. italics, incorrect punctuation on image captions per WP:MOS, and inconsistency in page numbering in citations (some use p. others don't). I suggest first fixing the items noted in my edit summaries, and then approaching someone like User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check.  I'm always surprised when a nomination gets seven supports with no one apparently having checked on these issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I've gotten them all. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also attempted to link the more technical terms for people to click on when they don't understand something. I hope that helps. Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.