Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chalcogen/archive1
- 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Chalcogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this is a solid, well-referenced, comprehensive article. It passed GA some time ago, and I believe that it has only improved since. As I am fairly inexperienced with the FA process, please don't come down too hard on me. Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference formatting needs work; consistent date formats, consistency all around. --Rschen7754 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. These element category articles are tough targets, and I've been hard on them at FAC before. Unfortunately, I have to do that here. There are a lot of problems; I'm not going to try to be comprehensive here. The lead is choppy, and arguably not a properly balanced summary of the article. There are quite a few claims that are either unreferenced or whose referencing is not clear. The overall structure, dominated by short paragraphs, is not compelling prose. As noted, the reference formatting needs considerable work. But the biggest problem, in my eyes, is that a substantial amount of the content isn't about the topic of chalcogens as a whole, but about the specific chalcogens individually -- and often somewhat random bits of information about the specific elements, at that -- forking aspects of those articles more than addressing this one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The points on overall structure are highlighted very well above. Looking at factual accuracy the section on chemistry is woefully inadequate. What we have is a partial description of some compounds, and there are errors. Group trends have not been discussed. I made a detailed list of comments in September and suggested a better approach, but nothing has happened. Once again this article is being rushed through an assessment process. Axiosaurus (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This is an article on the elements of group 16 of the periodic table. The fact that the comparative chemistry of the elements in this group is completely missing is a glaring omission of basic subject matter. Petergans (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Jakob, I hope you'll take the above as constructive criticism and not be discouraged. This nomination does seem premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I realise it's frustrating to put the article up for Peer Review and come away with relatively few comments, but hopefully the above will give you some pointers for improvements, after which I'd recommend another attempt at Peer Review before renominating at FAC (pls note the instructions require nominators of archived FACs to refrain from nominating any article here for at least two weeks). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.