Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hydrochloric acid/archive1


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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:46, 12 September 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified WikiProject Chemicals, Wimvandorst, Cacycle, Edgar181, Walkerma, Physchim62.

This article was promoted to FA status in April 2005. However, it does not meet current FA standards, namely criterion 1c (references). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific, otherwise you will only be creating WikiDrama, not helping to improve articles. Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the same when I saw the very brief nomination, but after looking at the article I think the nominator is right. The article is almost completely unreferenced, and there is absolutely no chance that it would pass a featured article candidacy today in its current form. --Itub (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Physchim62, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. FA criterion 1c: "(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;" This article is almost completely unreferenced, therefore it fails 1c. Regarding your edit summary, I keep my comments brief. I've written two lines for other FAR noms and no one else has complained. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:FAR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking to nominate this for a review since putting it on my watchlist some months ago, but have been hesitant due to the fact that nominators are asked to provide help in improving the article. That said, the one area that should be completely referenced is the History section. I believe just by having looked over the rest of the article that it is easily verifiable (college textbooks and what not should serve) and should have inline references as per the nomination.
 * I would also say the prose could be spruced up, for what little there is of it. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The prose needs tidying up. Some points don't appear to make any sense. For example, the boiling points depend on "the concentration or molarity of HCl in the acid solution. They can range from those of water at 0% HCl" Huh? Surely 0% HCl is water? DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article could do with some grooming. All paragraphs are properly referenced in the style of 2005 FA requirements, which indeed needs a change-over to more modern in-line refs. I'll give it some attention in the near future. Due to the vacationing, I'm actually now off-Wiki for another fortnight (having a great non-wiki time), so herewith I kindly ask the FAR processor to keep this FAR open for an extended period.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The referencing system has been brough up to date. The 2005/FA requirement did allow for all references to be grouped in the References section. I have now moved the references into the text, updating them to in-line refs. The pointed out phrases that should be clarified, and some obvious unclarity in the lead section has been updated too. In my humble opinion, the (1c) criteria has been met in the style of today. If others recommendations remain, feel free to suggest here.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Remove per 1c. My concerns have not been addressed yet. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been sufficiently addressed. I request that the lead be rewritten to meet current standards and I hope more refs will be added in the future. Great work, everyone. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the citations in #Applications, #Presence, and #Safety are very very loose. There aren't nearly enough. I'm not one to require a citation or two every sentence, but those are definitely lacking. A fact like "HCl is not a common pickling agent for stainless steel grades." &mdash; Where is that coming from? There are other examples naturally, but that is illustrative of the lack of inline citations. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that example out: indeed, where did that come from? Apparently a new text that an unqualified editor added at a later time: I've removed it. For the rest, I will try to add some more precise references for the sections that may need substantiation.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC).


 * Remove - I agree with and  here, there are still whole chunks of this article that lack in-line citations or are wholly unsourced. The article would not pass a WP:GA review in its present state, and certainly is not up to current standards at WP:FA and would have a rough time at WP:FAC, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wim van Dorst seems to be the only one working on cleaning up the article. He was on a wikibreak when this article was nominated, but he is made good progress. I suggest giving him (or anyone else who wants to help!) a bit more time and I'm sure that the article can be rescued. I think that in most cases the "unsourced" information comes from the references at the end, and it is just a matter of finding out which reference was used for each statement and adding an inline citation. --Itub (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is a very long ways from where it needs to be; not sure if holding at this late stage will yield the desired result, but feedback would help. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked Wim for a follow up comment. Marskell (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, my intention is indeed to further improve the article regarding the 1c criterion. I don't have too much spare time, so I'll ask some regular WP:Chem contributor to step in as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC).
 * The applications section could be easily referenced with the aid of an undergraduate chemistry textbook, as has been noted above. I have nevertheless changed the order of paragraphs to reflect the usage of hydrochloric acid by weight: objections to this bold action are probably best at the article talk page, as they are irrelevant to the comments raised here. The safety section needs a little bit of work on it, but the references are easily available (I haven't added them yet because I'm spending my time replying on this page). On the other hand the "presence" section, while accurate, is not easily referenceable after the first paragraph: a bit of help anyone? Physchim62 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With help of several other editors of the WikiProject Chemicals, I think we have now well taken care of the above-mentioned 1C criterion (no in-line reference). This article was one of the first FA articles of WP, and the first FA of the Wikiproject as general effort. The referencing in 2005 wasn't a major concern, and although the references were not written in-line then, it was very well-resourced and edited. I hope with this latest effort to re-do the work of three years ago, the FAR can now be closed. With special thanks to WP:Chem.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC).

On a more general note, it might be wise for WP Chem to go through all its older FAs and fix them up, similarly to what happened here, if such has not been done so. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with 1c if the first paragraph of #Other_applications could have the last two sentences referenced. I don't know if the reference after the first sentence supports those sentences or if the reference in the following paragraph does so.
 * Thanks, Izno. The paragraph was indeed covered by that ref (G&E). I have added the other detailed ref for this info (CEH), in such a way that it covers both paragraphs. And we'll take your recommendation for WP:Chem to note as well.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  05:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

I see some cleanup needs here and there, and will try to help after I catch up from travel. Can someone solve the text squeeze in the first section (see WP:MOS). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, yes, please dig in to improve. I took care of the textsqueeze for you.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm still trying to get there, just very far behind after a week away due to travel. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made my first pass through; there is still more of same to be done. The article was substantially WP:OVERLINKed, items linked in the article were repeated in See also (see WP:LAYOUT), there are missing publishers and accessdates, there were issues of WP:MOSDATE, there were hyphens where negative signs should be used, and ly adverbs aren't hyphenated. The article can probably make it, but others should comb through for more of same; I didn't finish.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a very nice grooming effort, improving well. I checked all current links against 2008 ideas of overlinking, and I think you have now found a proper balance between being understandable for non-chemists and being pleasantly readable by experts in the field. I also checked all hyphens and similar symbols, and indeed found a few to be corrected. The only thing I don't understand is the remark 'ly adverbs not hyphenated' in your edit comments. As I don't see errors in the text, I presume it done now. PS. The FAR was originally for suspected failure on the 1c criterion; I'm glad to see we are now further improving the article on many other points as well.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC).
 * I also used the FA tools (thanks Sandy), and the PR script to find OFIs. And I fixed what I found.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Good enough to Keep now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Struck out my Remove above, I see some great work has gone into this article, and I assume further work is still being done so I will wait a bit to do a reassessment later. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Keep I don't see any obvious deficiencies. Note: I am not a chemist.
 * "it was used by alchemists in the quest for the philosopher's stone, and later by European scientists including Glauber, Priestley, and Davy." To the uninitiated this sounds as though Priestley and Davy searched for the philosopher's stone. It would be better to separate the two clauses into two distinct sentences.
 * "Until the Alkali Act 1863, excess HCl was vented to the air." Should be qualified to point out that the legislation is UK-specific.
 * "It reacts with basic compounds such as calcium carbonate or copper(II) oxide to metal chlorides." I am unclear here whether it reacts with metal chlorides or forms them when mixed with carbonates and oxides.
 * "They range from those of water at 0% HCl to values for fuming hydrochloric acid at over 40% HCl" I don't really understand "0% HCl" nor how hydrochloric acid can have a crystallization point of ice at 0%, when this is not hydrochloric acid but water. The article should be on the acid not on the solvent.
 * "The use of high-quality hydrochloric acid is the regeneration of ion exchange resins." Should this be "High-quality hydrochloric acid is used in the regeneration of ion exchange resins."? DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All FA articles should be understandable by non-chemists as well. Thanks for pointing out these improvement opportunities. We've taken care of all of them.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.