Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxygen/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 21:43, 27 December 2007.

Oxygen

Check external links

Co-nomination between mav, Nergaal and WikiProject Elements

I believe the article in the present form is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive, and therefore should be an FA. It also just passed a GA review. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article had 26KB of prose before the FA push was started in mid-September. Since then I've added a bit over 20KB of prose and others have added more, making the total prose size 51KB. This amount of prose is necessary given the large scope of this article (it is part of 3 WikiProjects) and that it is a Vital Article. Nergaal has extensively copyedited, cited and reorganized the article to its current form and other members of WikiProject Elements, especially Sbharris, Pyrotec and Derek.cashman have helped. --mav (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Surprising that no-one has given any comments yet, so I'll give it a go. Overall I really like the article, it is very comprehensive, nicely illustrated and adequately referenced.

The first paragraph of the lead is very technical, and some of the details could perhaps be explained later - in order to give the lay-person a good overview first.

Do you have a specific example in mind? All the technical terms there are allready linked to other articles for detailed explanations. Shouldn't that be enough? Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 37 has a retrieval date of 2997-12-16, ref 4 a typo that should be fixed. Done
"In organic compounds" reads a bit choppy, perhaps the paragraphing could be improved? Done
The article is a bit on the large side at nearly 80kb. The long list of examples in "Compounds" could perhaps be trimmed?

What do you think of moving that section into a separate article and chopping down on the oxides and silicate subsections?Nergaal (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. The main compounds and "in organic compounds" could probably also be made a bit smaller. henrik•talk 14:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Allotrope" may not be readily understood by everybody. Can the section header be replaced by a more common term?

From article on Allotropy: is a behavior exhibited by certain chemical elements: these elements can exist in two or more different forms, known as allotropes of that element. Somebody could switch "allotropes" with "forms" or something on this line, but then it would be confusing. I do not think that a term should not be used as a title only because it might be too technical. A similar example could be the term "isotope". Although it is more familiar, it might not be familiar to some people; nevertheless it would not be a good solution to replace it with another term (that could also be confusing).Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A billion degrees are required for two oxygen nuclei to undergo nuclear fusion to form the heavier nucleus of sulfur.". Degrees of what? Fahrenheit, Celsius? Done

Probably Celsius given that the ref is from a Brit so I put that in the article. It doesn't matter because the difference in Kelvin and Celsius is well under the amount of uncertainly in the figure. Meaning, a billion degrees Kelvin is no different than a billion degrees Celsius in the world of significant digits. --mav (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few one line paragraphs that should be merged. Done

Overall though, well done! henrik•talk 11:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further ref comments: The link in ref 21 is dead (404). Ref 50 currently gives a timeout. henrik•talk

Object for now - I've written about half the prose in this article and was in the process of finishing up. So I must object until I'm done. The points that still need to be addressed are transcluded here. --mav (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.