Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Helium

Helium
'''Note - Helium was a "Refreshing Brilliant Prose" holdover. This nomination was a FAC started later to "rectify" the siltation. For this reason, this has been redesignated a FARC whose result was to keep it was a featured article. Raul654 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom with WikiProject Elements.

I would like to recertify this article. It is a holdover from the Brilliant prose days (see Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science) that was until very recently an almost certain candidate for de-featuring (not at all compressive and no references see ). So I greatly expanded it and added references. This expansion has created what is in effect a completely new article so it seems fit to put it through a proper FAC to see if it is FA quality now. So is this FA quality now? If this nomination fails, then the article should be de-featured. --mav 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, insofar as it is necessary to revalidate an article that is already featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Minor object . Now thats what I call a peremptory strike (before FARC) :) Uses section is mostly bulleted - try changing it to normal paragraphs (what goes around... ;p).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That is the format specified in WikiProject Elements. The FA criteria clearly state that I must follow those criteria. --mav 04:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The few bullet points that could be paragraphs in their own right are now broken-off from the list. This is all I can do (the reason why WikiProject Elements uses bullet lists in the uses section is to avoid one sentence paragraphs there). --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I removed my objection. Treat my vote as support if there are no other objections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral . I think it's too early for a full and fair FA assessment. The article still is in a freshly-poured and thoroughly-stirred state, with a few minor, yet unnecessary wrinkles, and should have some time for the froth to settle. Femto 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What specifically still needs to be done? Feedback - I want feedback! :) --mav 19:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. It contains all you need to know and can't get much better after a much, much longer time. I still think that big texts are scary though, so this is (not really) on the condition that somebody promises it will contain an overview phase diagram in the near future. Femto 18:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object for now. I like the article but have some comments. I did some editing myself but was unable to solve the following: Ok, my objections have been addressed.
 * The diagram at the top right corner lacks an explanation. Especially the figures above the periodic table need a guide. If such a guide exists, I was unable to find it. This my main objection, my other objections are just "wrinkles" as stated by Femto.
 * From the intro: "The properties of its rare stable isotope called helium-3 are important..." this is too vague. What is important about these properties? The rest of the sentence could use some rephrasing as well.
 * I don't know the validity of the source but "most production outside the U.S. coming from Canada and Poland" contradicts these numbers which suggest an important role for Algeria.
 * Speaking about production, the two paragraphs at the beginning under the heading "Production and use" show only the history of production in the US. While the majority of Helium was and currently is produced (I have a tendency to use the word purified) in the US, other countries do have a contribution as well. Jan van Male 19:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That is the standard diagram for all element articles. I planed to have an explanation on the image description page anyway, so I'll add one via a template (since it will be the same for each element). The lead section is already a bit overloaded - I needed to at least mention that helium-3 is important and link to the article on that subject. There simply is no space to explain why it is important but I&#8217;ll see what I can quickly add parenthetically. The source info I have is a combination of incomplete data from 2001 and complete data from the late 1960s. Thanks for the link. I&#8217;ll use that to update the article. --mav 19:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is now a key template at Image:He-TableImage-BIG.png and Template:ChemElementTableImageKey is linked via the word 'Key' under the displayed thumb in the article. Everything else should also be fixed. --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Great save. I'd much rather see this than nomination on WP:FARC. I'm not sure it needs recertification here except comments for improvment. The only thing I saw was the verbose inline citations are pretty cumbersome. In spite of that they are excellent, and that is much much better than not having them at all. However, perhaps they would be less intrusive if they were made into superscripts using the Footnote3 autonumbering system. - Taxman 23:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ack! A hacked note system. I'd love to just have work the same way but have the notes section generated automatically. Argh - having to write the same thing twice is a pain. But I'll give it a try... --mav 00:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing that again. I tried using that template system but the result was a complete mess (too many of my refs are exactly the same - same book and same page). Until a real ref system is developed I've commented the inline references out. In the interim, these will still be visible to editors looking at the source text, but not by readers. --mav 02:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Factual errors.  In particular, the article seems confused about viscosity.  It claims "(superfluidity and almost no viscosity are also notable behaviors)"; later it claims that " [non-superfluid liquid helium] has a very low viscosity" and that for superfluid helium "its viscosity is very near zero".  Now, I don't know about non-superfluid helium, but a superfluid has exactly zero viscosity.  I'll fix that, but I don't feel confident about the article's truthfulness.  There are more sections I find highly doubtful, but perhaps they belong on the article's talk page. --Andrew 05:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) OK, done one pass cleaning and raising objections on the talk page.  There are a lot. --Andrew 06:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) My objections are satisfied; a few minor quirks remain, but I am now happy. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is fully referenced with inline citations noting book and page number. I've used some of the best sources available to write this article. Almost all the discrepancies are likely due to the different way the different sources I used described things and the different context they are used. Other issues may be due to poor sentence structure on my part. I'll take a look at your specific feedback and respond to that later. But in the mean time it would be nice if you assumed good faith on my part. --mav 13:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assume you intended to produce a correct article, and that your sources are not wrong (although possibly out of date). But there are many places where it looks like you misunderstood what they are saying, or at least, rewrote it in a way that's highly confusing.  Anyway, this generic talk is basically irrelevant; if someone cleans up the problems I listed I'll be much happier. (I cleaned up the ones I could, but someone needs to hit the books for the rest). --Andrew 18:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like the major problem was that one of the references I used was bad - really bad in fact - and poisoned much of the article with mis-information and downright wrong facts. We have now fixed this. This also goes to show that print references should not be trusted blindly just because they are in print. --mav 12:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a vote, just a comment: the article is seeing significant attention (and, I think, improvements) from several users (including mav and myself); some of my objections are still unanswered, but I would like to urge people not to archive this too quickly, and to encourage people to take another look at the article in a few days (or now; help is welcome!). --Andrew 20:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we've fixed all the major issues (and then some). The article is still not perfect, but then that is not a criteria for FAs. Please consider at least removing your objection (a support would be nice, but not needed). --mav 01:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * While there are still a few points that could use more information, I'm now happy with the article. I encourage people to go take another look at it now. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Andrew 03:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)