Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lead(II) nitrate/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 removed 02:34, 25 December 2007.

---

Lead(II) nitrate

Review commentary

Notifications left at WP Chemistry, Wimvandorst, Walkerma, WJBscribe, Pyschim62, Wknight94 and Grimlock. Grrahnbahr 11:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1 b) 1 c)

My opinion of this article is that it is not good enough. It got at least one wrong fact in the text, and a lot of things are missing. It looks like it is unbalanced, it tells a lot about the chemistry, and not so much about the rest. Some paragrahps is ending with a chemical formula, without being followed with explaing text. The article does not contain information about production today. It could have been better illustrated. The history part is far from good enough. Grrahnbahr 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr, please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Lead(II) nitrate}} and leave a summary of notifications here as in this sample. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• What is this all about. A new featured article review. The page was nominated featured article on May 7 2007 and has hardly changed since then. I for one am not going to invest any time in this discussion V8rik 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. As far as I can see the article was nominated November 2 2006, and accepted with 4 to 1 votes, with two of the yes-votes from significant contributors. But actually I don't see your point bringing it in here. Grrahnbahr 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• If by wrong fact you are referring to the date of discovery, I've fixed that. This is a chemical, what's wrong with focusing on the chemistry? The (quite recent) consensus at FAC was to promote despite lack of production data, if that's what you mean by things missing. As discussed there, people made an effort to find the information and couldn't. Same about the history. You can't blame them for not adding information that possibly is not even published! Finally, I see no problem with the chemical formulas. They all correspond to the process discussed in the preceding paragraph. If that is not obvious, it can be fixed trivially by adding a sentence such as "This process is represented by the following equation" at the end of the paragraph, before the equation. --Itub 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The molar mass is wrong too, but it looks like it can't be fixed. A lot of articles won't reach up to FA because it haven't been produced reliable sources for information. I am not blaming anyone, it is actually a good article, and I do agree the amount of information have to be concidered when reviewing an article (demand less for Lead(II) nitrate than NaCl). But it is still not a complete enough article. And some of my claims is still not answered. It does not tell much about production today. Grrahnbahr 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean regarding the molar mass. First, how is it wrong? Second, why can't it be fixed? --Itub 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you meant that the number of significant figures was wrong, fine. I've updated the article accordingly. --Itub 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that there was a template that computed the molar mass automatically, but it had one of the atomic masses wrong. I've fixed that. In any case, the error was literally insignificant, as it was smaller than the uncertainty in the atomic weight of lead. --Itub 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Comment: this article is really FA quality. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

I vote against. Comment Lead nitrate is of minor commercial signficance, and it would be difficult to identify a less topical reagent. The article consists, IMHO, of a boring, olf-fashioned chemical story that virtually could have been written in 1950's. I would hope that in the materials, catalysis, or chemical biology themes we could devise a more exciting and at least contemporary topic.--Smokefoot 16:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: FAR is not a vote. The review portion of FAR is a discussion on whether certain criteria are met or not and how to address any problems/concerns about the article. Joelito (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but if this "discussion" is devoted to criteria of problems etc, I suggest that the analysis focus our attention on articles of more contemporary or topical nature. Again, for what its worth, one could select, almost at random, any article in WE-Chem and come up with a more compelling topic than this one. IMHO.--Smokefoot 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "discussion". This is a discussion. The purpose is to determine whether FA criteria are met. Compellingness (I think this is a word I just made up) or non-boringness (also made up) is not one of the criteria. Joelito (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-boringness is one of the criteria, 1a says the article have to be engaging. It wasn't one of the criterias listed in this FAR, but it could be worth thinking of anyway. I think its very difficult to get this article more engaging, but Smokefoot have some good points there anyway. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether a topic is compelling or not does not determine the quality of the article. Technical issues whether correct quality English is used, and all details of the subject are well covered do, and similar. The point of this discussion here is that someone pointed out that in his opinion this Lead(II) nitrate article does not comply with the required quality for the FA designation. I think it does. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

That's right, it's my opinion. I brought it here to hear other persons opinions. Smokefoot's last comment is describing for what I ment to say. I was starting to translate from this article, but stoped the work because of obvious wrong facts in the article. Those are corrected, but its still sparse on some topics, like history and production. One of the producers is selling lead nitrate in 1000 kg bags, is it made like this in laberatories? Even though it isn't more published sources, I think the article is to short when it comes to important topics, and lacks information we could expect in a FA about a chemical compound. Not all subject that excist, are potential FA-subjects, because its subjects we don't know to much about. Grrahnbahr 20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove Even if the worst wrong facts is corrected (1c), it doesn't include many details about major topics like history and production. Grrahnbahr 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It is as comprehensive as possible for the topic. If anyone can prove that more comprehensive information about the history and production actually exists, then we can worry about adding it to the article or de-featuring it. --Itub (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Remove unless spruced up. I hope it survives, but it's looking wobbly. For example: "Lead(II) nitrate is toxic and probably carcinogenic to humans. Therefore, it is to be handled and stored with the appropriate safety precautions." No reference; "it should be handled". It keeps referring to 19th-century Europe: but when exactly? Surely someone knows whether it was 1801 or 1899? Makes a big difference. Tony (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing: No work on-going and significant issues remain: comprehensiveness concerns, one sentence paragraphs, formulae dropped at the end of sections without contextualization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marskell (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.