Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Atom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [1].

Atom

[edit]
Notified: WT Physics, WT Chemistry, WT Elements

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was featured in 2008. Back then, this article was substantially different, and Wikipedia's standards for featured articles were also different. I think this article should undergo a second review to see if it meets modern standards. This is not to say this article is bad, I think it has improved over the years, but it should be reviewed under current standards, because our standards have risen. Kurzon (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is the article as it was just before becoming FA (July 2008): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=224375262 Kurzon (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon, could you please do the notifications? See step 6 of the nomination instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kurzon did not do the notifications, so I am doing them now. This may mean the review time needs to be extended by a week. The talk page was notified on 1 April, but no deficiencies were specified. In fact, the nominator specified no deficiencies in the nomination either :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I apologize for this, I didn't quite fully understand my responsibilities when I raised this issue. It's the first time I've ever done this. I thought simply posting an announcement was enough. Also, I didn't understand who I was supposed to notify. I don't know who in particular would be interested in this. Kurzon (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physics isn't my area at all, but I'm seeing significant uncited text and MOS:IMAGELOC violations with sandwiching. Overall it definitely looks salvageable but someone will have to check the sourcing as well. buidhe 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed two images that were creating text-sandwiching, and replaced another in that area with one that included more-text-relevant illustration (as well as encompasing several of the removed-images' ideas). DMacks (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third graf of the lede ends with these sentences: All electrons, nucleons, and nuclei alike are subatomic particles. The behavior of electrons in atoms is closer to a wave than a particle. The former seems out of place; it might belong better in the second paragraph, where electrons, nuclei and neucleons are introduced. The second seems unclear to me. That is, I only know what it means because I already know about the topic and I can guess what it's trying to say. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unclear, but you understand what it is saying? How would you express it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might cut it completely; it's redundant with the statements about the necessity of quantum mechanics in the first paragraph, and it's both loaded and vague. In quantum physics, we calculate the probabilities of events using equations that involve abstract "waves", and the events themselves look like the detection of particles. Neither aspect can be neglected; in what way is the behavior of subatomic particles within atoms "closer" to one aspect than the other? Is it helpful to lead the reader into imagining water waves when the waves we're talking about are oscillations in complex-valued probability amplitudes? The passage leading into it talks about radioactive decay: In this case, the nucleus shatters and leaves behind different elements. Do waves "shatter"? On top of that, the pictures [2][3] show clouds, not waves. Any reader who doesn't already know the material is being presented with disjointed statements, metaphors and imagery that they must try to fit together. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurzon: could you please update whether this needs to "Move to FARC", or if you are satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading needs cleanup, citations should be formatted ( oxford dictionary – valency), and several of the sources are red-linked by Headbomb's script, please check them, eg Ted Talk. Can we not improve on "current state" as a section heading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing
I fixed the oxford-dictionary ref (actually I replaced it with a different ref), and I see no other refs that are missing substantial details. There are currently no redlinks in the references. I did some CS1 cleanup. A few Further Reading entries were removed since the original discussion here began, and I just removed a few more. @SandyGeorgia:, could you clarify what "Further reading needs cleanup" is needed (format, inclusion criteria, annotations, etc.)? DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Featured articles should be comprehensive; why are 14 additional listings needed in Further reading? What do they add that is not already in the article, and if they add something not already there, why isn't it there? What are the criteria for these listings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional detail. I easily removed a third of them. I think more can also go (many are more about history of science which is its own article apart from mainly about atoms). DMacks (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming citation style is full ref format in the footnote. However, there are four that are WP:SFN (two each are the only use of their respective Bibliography and two are to different pages of one Bibliography entry). Should they all become standardized as full biblio in the footnotes themselves? DMacks (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back when first promoted, all references were full biblio inline AGRL or WP:SFN. Now we are down to 3–4 that use that latter style, so I'll convert those over soon. But now we also have many refs that are WP:LDR. It seems like we get a unified list in the References section, but is this something we should unify as far as being the "best we can" to avoid mixed WP:CITEVAR? DMacks (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Organization
I think this refers to the concern of XOR'easter regarding a few sentences' meaning and location? They seem to have been massively overhauled or removed altogether. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References

Headbomb's reliability script is returning a red link for:

  • Ghosh, D.C.; Biswas, R. (2002). "Theoretical calculation of Absolute Radii of Atoms and Ions. Part 1. The Atomic Radii". Int. J. Mol. Sci. 3 (11): 87–113. doi:10.3390/i3020087

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Headbomb's script is returning multiple redlinks:
What "red links" are there? I don't see any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the Ted Talk, Chad Orzel isn't a quack. There are better sources for this than a pop science talk however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the link is helpful :) The four I listed above are flagged as pink by your script. Is there a difference between red and pink in your script? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The script must be interacting with something, because only references being touched by the script is 10.3390/i3020087 (yellow, because MDPI) and ResearchGate/Zenodo (also in yellow, because those are general repositories and unvetted). The Chad Orzel link in the article is in red, for YouTube, but here it's plain since there is no actual link to YouTube. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to leave it to Headbomb and SandyGeorgia here, since possibly nobody else knows what script you are talking about, what the criteria are for "reliability", etc. But whatever it is, it's flagging a Journal of the American Chemical Society article as unreliable? DMacks (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb perhaps it's me, but I cannot locate anywhere on your userpage a link to or information about how I downloaded your script or instructions for installing it, so perhaps you can provide that info here and there? It appears to me that the problem here that is causing the sources to be flagged is that URLs are added (unnecessarily) to other sites that provide (only sometimes) the full text, and it's not clear to me if those are copyright violations. I remain confused about why they show as yellow links on some browsers, and pink on others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UPSD? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also I just inspected your User:SandyGeorgia/common.js page and you have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js installed. So I suspect what you're seeing is red/pink/whatever for duplicate links, rather than unreliable ones. I can't reproduce the issue however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, darnit. I will have to try to deal with this after I finish dealing with that copyvio issue elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting

The article uses three different kinds of dashes: spaced WP:ENDASHes, unspaced WP:EMDASHes (pick one or the other), and even spaced WP:EMDASHes, a no-no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on exactly what problems remain. Several content concerns were mentioned, some discussion happened, and the article was changed. Some ref/biblio concerns were mentioned, some of which don't even make sense, and the article was also changed. Some formatting/wording/style concerns were noted, and the article was changed. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are still considerable citation-needed issues. Hopefully someone will go through and address them without the need for tagging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from RD

The FA criteria states that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". What is being practiced right now at WP:FAC is basically - everything other than "the sky is blue" must be cited. In a quick read-over of Atom, I count at least 21 instances where I could add the citation needed tag, if I wanted to. I won't deface the article by doing that, though.
Then, we still have other problems (examples only):
  • "Bohr's model was not perfect and was soon superseded by the more accurate Schroedinger model (see below), (...)" - 1) why was it not perfect (ie, the limitations of the model)?, 2) that's not how you write Schrödinger's name, 3) the (see below) bit is unnecessary, since the section on Schrödinger's model comes right after;
  • In Schrödinger's model we explain what the spin is; in subsequent sections, we can find: "and a quantum mechanical property known as spin.", "Elementary particles possess an intrinsic quantum mechanical property known as spin.". This means that we introduce the concept of spin three times in the article;
  • "a mathematical model of the atom (wave mechanics) that described the electrons as three-dimensional waveforms rather than point particles." - The (wave mechanics) bit is not necessary and distracts from what is being said;
  • "In 1925 Werner Heisenberg published the first consistent mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics (matrix mechanics)." - Once again, if anything in paranthesis is important to the sentence, it should be integrated in the sentence, otherwise it's just a couple of random words; does this mean something like "In 1925 Werner Heisenberg published the first consistent mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, known as matrix mechanics."?
  • In the "Fission, high-energy physics and condensed matter" section, we could take something more from the recently promoted Discovery of nuclear fission. "In 1944, Hahn received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Despite Hahn's efforts, the contributions of Meitner and Frisch were not recognized." This does not hint at any of the controversy that surrounded the discovery;
  • "Neutrons and protons (collectively known as nucleons)", then "All the bound protons and neutrons in an atom make up a tiny atomic nucleus, and are collectively called nucleons". - this info is only needed in the Nucleous section, the first instance does not add much to the context of the sentence (ie, subatomic particles in general);
  • "Electrons have been known since the late 19th century, mostly thanks to J.J. Thomson; see history of subatomic physics for details." - That sentence could benefit from a pipe link;
  • We say twice in the article that Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932; none of these instances is appropriately sourced though, since the first instance links to Chadwick's Nobel Lecture (not a third-party source since it's by Chadwick himself) and the second instance is unsourced (and not needed, I'd say).
I'm stopping now since English is not my first language so reading long texts in English about physics feels like homework to me, sorry. But I think the article still needs some work to keep the star. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "The sky is blue" does not need to be cited, but there is still plenty in this article that does need to be cited. It is interesting that the Retired Duke pulls the same first example that I saw: "Bohr's model was not perfect and was soon superseded by the more accurate Schroedinger model (see below), but it was sufficient to evaporate any remaining doubts that matter is composed of atoms. For chemists, the idea of the atom had been a useful heuristic tool, but physicists had doubts as to whether matter really is made up of atoms as nobody had yet developed a complete physical model of the atom." All of this is begging for attribution. There is more, and defacing the article with citation needed tags hopefully won't be necessary. A top-to-bottom reworking of this article is needed. Perhaps the nominator didn't lay it all out clearly enough, but it is nonetheless clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the above review, now with more time in my hands: (I swear I'm not sidelining you Sandy, I agree with everything that you said above)
History of atomic theory - In philosophy
  • "appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India." - Greece and India are not cultures;
  • The only source that I can access here via GBooks, goes on about philosophy and the atomic theory, but it does not explicitly back anything in this paragraph. The book certainly does not say anything about the Greek word atomos, and that is the small bit that the citation should be at least directly sourcing;
  • I don't think this short paragraph convey what can be said about the relationship between philosophy and the atom, there are whole books out there on the subject (ie, From Atomos to Atom: The History of the Concept Atom, also The Atom in the History of Human Thought that is there, but is not being used as it should);
History of atomic theory - Dalton's law of multiple proportions
  • We go directly from vague assertions about philosophy in the Ancient times to "experimental data" in the 1800s? That is quite the jump;
  • First paragraph here is unsourced - citation needed tag nº 1;
  • This section should be about Dalton's law in general; instead, we have three almost identical examples on atomic proportions, only with different compounds. Wikipedia is not a textbook to give three examples of every concept introduced;
Kinetic theory of gases
  • Full paragraph here is unsourced - citation needed tag nº 2;
  • I'm not sure that having a new section for every new law/theory/advance in the history of atomic theory is the way to go here - subsections become ultra short this way, and disconnected from each other;
Discovery of the electron
  • "1,800 times lighter than hydrogen (the lightest atom)." - Did they already know at this time that the atoms of hydrogen were the lightest? Because this is the first time that we mention measuring the weight of atoms in any way and it comes out of nowhere, when previously all we talk about is theories;
  • Why are "subatomic", "corpuscules" and "electrons" in italics?
  • This paragraph could use some copyediting, but more importantly, citation needed tag nº 3 at the end;
Discovery of the nucleus
* "This model is sometimes known as the plum pudding model." - citation needed tag nº 4;
Discovery of isotopes
*"discovered that there appeared to be more than one type of atom at each position on the periodic table." - This is the very first time we mention the periodic table in the article. No explanation is given as to 1) what is it; 2) why is it relevant that each "position"(?!) seemed to have more than one type of atom;
*"The term isotope was coined by Margaret Todd as a suitable name for different atoms that belong to the same element." - we haven't yet established in the article that different number of atoms = different element, ie. the basics of physics, why are we even talking about isotopes at this point?!
  • Delist - The article needs citations in several places, as shown above. I count 21 paragraphs without a citation at the end. The article needs a copyedit to get rid of the "many ancient cultures such as Greece and India" bits, the butchering of Schrödinger's name, etc. and the random italics and parenthesis everywhere. The article needs expansion in some parts (ie. philosophy / atom relationship, the fission controversy) and trimming in others (ie. the school textbook examples in Dalton's section). The article needs a coherent structure that explains that different number of atoms = different element before going on a tangent about isotopes. The article can't introduce the concept of spin three times in three different sections. The article can't repeat information without bringing anything new to the table in the second time (ie. saying twice that Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932).
I reviewed the easiest part of the article (the beginning, history + subatomic particles) and I wrote 2 walls of text above; I don't want to think about reviewing the sections on Properties. Needs top-to-bottom rework outside WP:FAR. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Atom/archive1&oldid=985443438"