Wikipedia:Featured article review/Technetium/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:11, 25 January 2010.

Technetium

 * Notified: User talk:Aarchiba, User talk:Mav, User talk:Jan van Male, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements.

Review commentary
FA from 2005, a few minor 1c issues, otherwise there is some copyediting that could be done: a few very short subsections that could possibly be merged, and one-sentence paragraphs and other short paragraphs. 9 images used in the article: File:Tc-TableImage.png - "other versions" appears like it needs fixing, File:Tc,43.jpg - could use formatting for source/author info, the rest of the images could use formatting with commons:template:information, including: File:Дмитрий Иванович Менделеев 4.gif, File:UraniumUSGOV.jpg, File:Basedow-vor-nach-RIT.jpg, File:Technetiumhydrid.png, File:Technetiumcluster.png, File:Technetiumcarbonyl.png, File:Technetiumkomplex.png. Shouldn't be too hard to bring the article up to speed. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article already received a major overhaul in May from Materialscientist... I guess we might as well make things official and fix the images, table and other minor issues. Will take a look this weekend. --mav (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! :) Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've contacted two people who should know the source of File:Tc,43.jpg, but couldn't get information on the source (one doesn't know, other doesn't reply), thus replaced the image with a sourced one. Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Commons info template now on each image. HTML table replaced File:Tc-TableImage.png when the new Elementbox was implemented for this article. --mav (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I always try to help out whenever a an element is brought to FAR, so I'm on board too. I'll try to take a look in the next couple of days. Perhaps I'll do a line-by-line prose review to help improve the writing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Several images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. For the structural formulae I suggest IUPAC as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text updated (by several editors). Please check. Materialscientist (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It mostly looks good. Two problems, though. First, the two images File:Tc-TableImage.png and File:Tc,43.jpg lack alt text. Second, and a very minor issue: the phrase "Black and white image of" should probably be removed, as per WP:ALT . Eubulides (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Third image fixed, first two is a general (unresolved) issue with all elements FAs: those images are "hardwired" into the elementbox. This is a question to Mav. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mav, perhaps you could comment? For File:Tc,43.jpg, could you please fix the problem by adding a suitable image alt parameter to Template:Infobox technetium's invocation of Elementbox? (I just support for that parameter.) You're right that the periodic table is a more-general problem than just this article; perhaps I should ask at WP:ACCESSIBILITY for help or ideas on that. Eubulides (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the image was to File:Tcfoil.jpg; I  some alt text for that. Eubulides (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The history section has one big problem. Nobody was searching for a element with a certain place in the PSE before 1869, because there was no PSE at that point. The discoveries of polinium  pelopium ilmenium are absolutly unrelated to technetium. The davyum discovery has to be looked at if Kern calls the element ekamanganese or points to a place in the PSE for his element. --Stone (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the literature is also flawed. The atomic number was first propsed in 1911 so something must be wrong with when Jonge (1996) states: Various workers claimed to have discovered an element with Z = 43 in naturally occurring ores and proposed such names as polinium (1828), ilmenium (1846), davyum (1877), lucium (1896) and nipponium (1908).  He quotes Kenna BT. The search for technetium in nature. J Chem Educ 1962; 39: 436-442. for that fact. So how you can sarch for something which you do not know that it is missing or search for Z = 43 when Z is unknown to you. Further problems is that ilmenium and pelopium are niobium an tantalum similar while polinium lucium and polonium are iron group metals similar to platinum, so they are not ment to be element 43.--Stone (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have really good knowledge of history of elements. It would be great if you could take initiative and fix that section in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The history section is not that bad and I have the literature used as source, so I can improve it. --Stone (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we want the history part which is not related to technetium except that the discovers quote a mass of around 100?--Stone (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would briefly mention that too and then see how the article stands. If it doesn't swell too much, my vote is to keep expanded history as this information is mostly lost on the internet. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think (at least some of) the subsections of Chemistry need to be merged. Hydrogen has chemistry subsections, but they are larger and each cover a broader range of information. Perhaps the technetium chemistry information could be resorted into Inorganic, Organic, and Clusters. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible, but my vote is no because subsections bring clarity. Other opinions? Materialscientist (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some lines of prose that I don't really understand: Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pure metallic single-crystal technetium becomes a type II superconductor at 7.46 K; irregular crystals and trace impurities raise this temperature to 11.2 K for 99.9% pure technetium powder" This sentence says that technetium becomes a superconductor at these temperatures, but the sentence that follows it discusses superconductor effects below these temperatures. Which is it?
 * Regarding your first question: superconductivity is a low-temperature phenomenon. When someone says that a material becomes superconductive "at 7.46 K", it implicitly means that it is superconductive at temperatures lower than 7.46 K, with 7.46 being the critical temperature. This could be made more explicit, though. --Itub (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the information about Tc-99m should be removed from the new Toxicity section, as the information is already discussed at great length in other sections of the article. Also, it doesn't really make sense to elaborate on this here because it isn't toxic to the human body. Perhaps Tc-99m could be referenced in passing in order to contrast it with other more toxic isotopes: "Unlike Tc-99m, which is used in medical applications, blah blah blah..."
 * Article changed a bit. I would keep the radiation protection (former "toxicity") part. Some people really need that information. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic are moved to talk:technetium for further work. Materialscientist (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Much great work has been done by several people. Getting close. --mav (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just finished an extensive copyedit, added some missing inline cites and removed or commented out material that really isn't needed but is still uncited. What else, if anything, is needed? --mav (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Much much better. I added one fact tag. Some images are still missing info, such as date, or author info. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added cite to the fact. Checked date/author info for images, added one author. IMO, date/author info is reasonably complete. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still see multiple images with empty fields. Really now, this should not be too hard to fix. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please point to an example (image and empty field)? Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Дмитрий Иванович Менделеев 4.gif = this one is an easy fix. :) Cirt (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced the image instead ;-) - actually long wanted to, as the new one is much more realistic. Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! :) There are still some minor issues with the other images, as noted above. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Info template, description, source and author info is on all images. --mav (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the same tactics, I changed the uranium ore picture to a referenced one (much easier than to find back the 2005 sources). Other images are self produced, thus author/dates are specified and to be taken from the individual image versions. Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Cirt (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Tcfoil.jpg = no way this has to be fair use, a free use image could definitely be used instead.
 * File:Technetiumhydrid.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
 * File:Technetiumcluster.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
 * File:Technetiumcarbonyl.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
 * File:Technetiumkomplex.png = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
 * File:Basedow-vor-nach-RIT.jpg = missing date field, should be an easy fix.
 * All have dates now. Still trying to tie-down the source info for the original image. A valid fair use rationale for Tc image may be possible depending on how constrained access to the element is. --mav (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Keep us posted. :) Cirt (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A note on "rationale" issue: search of techentium on images.google.com would return a few results, none being referenced, except for File:Tcfoil.jpg - that was the reason for using it. Just 6 October, I've got an email on the source of File:Tc,43.jpg and put into the description file. I have no access to that source, but the email person has, and offered to provide more details if needed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't File:Tc,43.jpg be used, and the fair use one deleted? Yes, info on the author-field for File:Tc,43.jpg would be good. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Author added (unknown). The trick here is I have to trust the email of that person on that image (that it is pure Tc and US government work - fine with me, but other opinions are welcome. Anyone has access to that book ?). That is why I keep the foil image in the infobox. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that, and the fact that versions of this image are so widely used on the Internet, I say we put Tc,43.jpg back. It has a cite, we know the cited book exists but can't find a copy. I think we have done our due diligence. Let's get rid of the fair use image. --mav (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. In terms of photographic and scientific quality, Tcfoil.jpg is better by all counts, but if fair use is an issue .. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, excellent work all around. :) Cirt (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Are we done with the FAR now? --mav (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, would like to hear what others think though. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we close this now? I think we are done and the article is now clearly up to current standards. --mav (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My voice may be disregarded, as I am a contributor, but I also think the article is up to the standards. We are polishing it further with Cryptic (many thanks to him!), but I believe this goes beyond FAR. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a member of WikiProject Elements, I am obviously biased towards keeping this as a Featured Article. Regardless, throughout my review I have yet to see any red flags which suggest that it should be demoted. I will continue to work on the article with Materialscientist regardless of how the FAR turns out. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we close this FAR now? This nom was mostly about marginal issues to begin with and the nominator has stated that the article is now up to par. I'd really like to move on to other things and stop worrying about this article. --mav (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article is ready to be kept yet. I found MOS issues in the lead (didn't look any further), text squeeze between images in several places, and one unnecessary red link (ppm).  Further work and review needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I went ahead and fixed some obvious MOS issues. A more MOS-experienced set of eyes welcome to point out remaining issues. --mav (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The first image 1) creates text squeeze with the infobox, and 2) has the subject looking off the page (see WP:MOS). Could it be relocated, further down in the article, and right-aligned so the subject is looking into the text?  You might ping either  or  to ask if either of them has time for a MOS tune-up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the image issue. Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article looks fine with regard to MOS compliance. However, there are a few dead links (check the toolbox; two links have "connection timeouts"). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the two last dead links by links to googlebooks.--Stone (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review i get the feeling that a lot of articles fail FAR and a lot of people are not happy with it. When I compare my work for FAR Helium and FAR Technetium know that something chaged, the process is less interactive and the coments come in at a point when most of the people improving the article think that the work is done. The workload done for FAR Helium compared to that with FAR Technetium has also increased without changes in the FA criteria. I hope we are done with FAR.--Stone (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Helium had some serious issues when it went to FAR and fixing those seemed easier and the FAR process seemed to go more smoothly. --mav (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With FAC and FAR getting very hard, I understand that some people or whole projects come to the conclusion that it is not worth to give that much work for the bronze star, when other article suffer from lack of work.--Stone (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Per above comment by, I agree this could be closed successfully as Keep. :) Cirt (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not there yet. There are still significant inconsistencies in the citation style ... I picked out the following examples on a quick flyover, indicating work is needed on reviewing all citations for a consistent style.
 * Unformatted citation (example): neurolite (bicisate dihydrochloride)". http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=3709.
 * Some use harv links to Bibliography, others don't
 * Missing accessdates and authors: http://arq.lanl.gov/source/orgs/nmt/nmtdo/AQarchive/4thQuarter07/page1.shtml
 * Why MarLap instead of EPA?
 * Different formatting of author names


 * Undefined or unlinked jargon ... The coordination number 9 in this complex is the highest for a technetium complex.
 * Missing NBSPs (I found three on a quick glance)
 * added a dozend somewhere (no clue if I eliminated all breakable spaces)--Stone (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I stopped there ... more work needed still. Please try to locate a non-Chemist person to go through and do a jargon and linking check. I also disagree with some of the statements above: the article would not pass FAC in this shape. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Just finished a MOS/Chem and readability copyedit to lede and ==Characteristics==. Dealing with jargon is difficult since explanations of it often include yet more jargon... Links and some explainers in the form of expanded jargon that hopefully conveys the meaning in context added. More later. --mav (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is "computer simulations" in quotes and why isn't it linked?
 * I can understand why, but the short answer is there is no need. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect linking: in the "Isotopes" section, the word occurs many times before it is linked.
 * Sorry, couldn't locate the questioned word. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think she was referring to the word "Isotopes"; I linked the first occurence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you indeed. Refs, author names, harv, accessdates, EPA fixed. Coordination number wikilinked. Some articles have no identifiable author. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC for further review; the linking is still off (see example, beta decay, used before it is later linked), and the technical jargon is still thick, requiring the reader to click on links to understand the article. Incorrect punctuation in the second sentence of the lead gives concern for copyedit issues (Technetium occurs in nature only in minute amounts; as a spontaneous fission product in uranium ore or by neutron capture in molybdenum ores.) This article still needs review and copyedit by a non-chemist person.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take another stab at cleaning things up first. Will work on this tomorrow. --mav (Please help review Mono-Inyo Craters) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Working... --mav 14:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another copyedit now done for entire article. I could not find any other issues with non-braking spaces to fix but fixed some linking issues. Some formatting fixes implemented. Most notable is putting the ==History== section back on top since that is what most readers will be interested in. More jargon explained or removed. --mav 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything else needed? --mav 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This FAR has been up for more than three months; why not advance it to FARC to get feedback and declarations? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There has already been plenty of feedback above and all issues have been acted on. The original nominator has also stated that the issues he had have been resolved. If nobody can think of other issues to raise, then I think this should be closed without a FARC. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feedback on this article was asked everywhere possible, and obtained. With many thanks to the comments, they have all been addressed. Surely, no article is ever perfect, but there should be a reasonable limit. Without slight to anyone, the recent edits are nitpicking, and could be spent on bringing another elements article to the FA level or on FAC reviewing. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested featured article criterion concerns are MOS and prose.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '')  02:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant improvements. Excellent work, Cirt (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per what I said above. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 02:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was one of the (minor) contributors to this article, but, setting aside any personal preferences, I see no reason for its delisting. Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I was involved in more than some edits and after that periode without major comments I think we can keep it.--Stone (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the amount of jargon in the chemistry and isotopes section could be reduced, but it looks good enough for FA. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another readability copyedit done for those sections. I'm not sure how jargon can be reduced more w/o removing info. From my read, the remaining jargon shouldn't impair the essential understanding of their sentences; some jargon is explained parenthetically, other jargon can be mostly understood in context. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 23:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. For the most part, the prose is pretty good.
 * The lead is squashed by an unnecessarily wide infobox.
 * "in fact"—I'd remove it. Tony  (talk)  11:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look Tony. I removed "in fact" and will try to make the infobox less wide. A trim of between 50 to 75 pixels should doable but will take some time to get right. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 14:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, I didn't have a new look, no problem from me with all these keep declarations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.