Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Assessment/A-class review 2009/Hydrochloric acid

Peerreviewer automated output
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

List of ambiguous links
Hydrochloric acid ambiguous links: Nice, what?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  20:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
 * No ambiguous links.

Edit count, top-10 (and a few)
en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = Hydrochloric_acid

We're all there!  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
 * At least it's simpler than at acetic acid, where we're all there in roughly equal proportions! I think we know whose little baby this is, Wim! Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

External links check
I fixed ref 13.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  21:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

Readability indices
The automatically determined readability indices are not useful: they include all text from the article, including tables, chemical formulae, and references. So the results are not indicative of the free flowing text. I think we should only assess the lede by this method. I'll try to determined values for this.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC).
 * That would be great if you could! The toolbox is there because it's the very same toolbox used at WP:FAC these days. Physchim62 (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply fooled the system. I copied the lede to a Sandbox page, and had that assessed. The table is the result from its assessment page. These indicate that this introductory text is well off the Fry readability scale. I wonder wether this is a useful indicator for article like these.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, I've tried the same trick for both Hydrochloric acid and Acetic acid (where running the tool on the whole article gives "This article seems to have too many long words and sentences for even most university graduates to easily read and understand."). The results on the ledes are nearer to some sort of reality, but are hampered by the short length of text (as the tool itself points out). I'll take the tool out of our toolbox, as it's obviously useless for our articles: I'll raise the matter at WT:FAC as well, when I have a moment. Physchim62 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Physchim62
Just notes for the moment! Physchim62 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This unreferenced paragraph needs looking at: "Of the seven common strong mineral acids in chemistry, hydrochloric acid is the monoprotic acid least likely to undergo an interfering oxidation-reduction reaction. It is one of the least hazardous strong acids to handle; despite its acidity, it consists of the non-reactive and non-toxic chloride ion. Intermediate strength hydrochloric acid solutions are quite stable upon storage, maintaining their concentrations over time. These attributes, plus the fact that it is available as a pure reagent, mean that hydrochloric acid makes an excellent acidifying reagent."
 * I traced this back to an 2005 edit by Henry Padleckas. I'll ask him to give it some attention.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * The style of the units in the table of physical properties needs looking at.
 * Done: re-edited, removed cluttering symbols, replace M with mol/dm3. I just could make myself replace the centrigrade with Kelvin, though.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Reference 11 "Van Dorst, W.C.A. (1996–2002). various technical papers (not for open publication ed.). Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals." doesn't pass WP:RS.
 * Done: removed (discussion below).  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Use of "ferrous chloride" and "ferric oxide" in the "Pickling of steel" section: probably industrial usage. Is this OK?
 * Done: Yes, it is the industrial use, especially the ferrous chloride (ferrochloride in many non-English languages NL, DE, FR). I did some copy-editing.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * "Production of organic compounds", "production of inorganic compounds": we really need a bit more chemistry in here
 * Done: I added some reactions mentioned in the text. Or did you mean we need to add more explanatory text, explaining what the chemistry involved is? I did add some indications.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Need to check current view on the development of peptic ulcers
 * "Safety" section needs more refs, and a particular discussion of the reaction of HCl with bleach (domestic danger)

Response to Physchim62

 * I think the ferrous chloride stuff is probably OK, though I don't mind if they get changed.
 * Done: see above.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Could Ref 11 be sent into the WMF checking system (you know, like they use for approving images for Commons) for approval?
 * Hmm, I don't think so in WikiPolitical terms. I think the real question is "Does this reference add anything to the article?" If the information is available elsewhere, we should prefer an open source: if not we have to ask ourselves why we are including it. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked whether this specific reference covered unique information, and it doesn't: the information is well covered by sufficient other references. So, I simply removed the ref (KISS principle).  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Why do you suggest an update on ulcer formation be necessary? They are only mentioned as potential result of failure of mucus layers in the stomach. Is there indication that this is wrong?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

Comments by Walkerma
Like PC, these are just some notes.
 * The two paragraphs in the history section, beginning at "During the Industrial Revolution in Europe...", could do with a copyedit IMHO.
 * Done: mostly re-phrasing, with some sentence shortening (good for the readability).  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * In the chemistry section, should we put in a couple of equations as examples? Perhaps a typical titration reaction, and a reaction with a metal?  That section just seems a bit small for such an important topic, and it doesn't seem very complete.
 * In the biology section, the natural neutralisation of HCl by sodium bicarbonate seems fishy to me. I know very little biochemistry, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think we should check this.  Walkerma (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done: It's true. Checked, copy-edited and added a ref.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  22:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC).