Wikipedia:Featured article review/Heavy metal (elements)/archive1

Heavy metal (elements)

Featured article review/Heavy metal (elements)/archive1

Notified: Chemistry WikiProject, Physics WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because during checking the sources a month ago, I found 14 that failed verification. This ranged from truncated quotes to inappropriate use of sources to support points that they don't make. I also found numerous obvious factual errors. At about the same time Johnjbarton (talk · contribs) also found a significant number of errors and irrelevant information; everything can be found in the edit history or in main page tags. As such it fails GA 2b, 3b, 4 and perhaps others. I posted on the talk page that I was considering a GAR, and the original FA nominator responded with comments that violate the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Until these major issues are resolved not only does it not merit FA status, it does not merit GA.

I nominated this going straight to GAR, since I cannot see how clear fails of multiple GA criteria warrant consideration for a FA. On procedural grounds it was bounced out of that (see talk page). In terms of the FA criteria it fails 1b and 1c, perhaps 1d and @Johnjbarton has argued that it also fails 4 (which I agree with).

Courtesy Ping of FAR for prior editors@Double sharp, Sandbh, Dustfreeworld, Graeme Bartlett, R8R, Johnbod, Edwininlondon, YBG, Smokefoot, SchroCat, Nergaal, Vanamonde93, and Jimfbleak:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)

This is my way of getting a reply button Johnjbarton (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Heavy metal (elements) is not Wikipedia's very best work.

1a. Prose is list-oriented, not engaging. Some non-reference footnotes contradict the main content.
1b. The topic is confusingly defined, using different definitions in different parts of the article.
1c. some of the references do not verify
1e. unstable. I've tried to make improvements.
4. Far too long, wandering over various possible definitions of the topic without clarity, mostly resorting to laundry list of factoids about a list of elements.

The definition of the article topic is controversial in the source literature. To avoid a muddle we need to face this reality with either a clear and singular chosen definition or a discussion of each option. The article attempts to do both, and cannot succeed that way. Then the problems are compounded by enumerating details about particular elements in a list that no one agrees upon. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am an inorganic chemist, an old one who has taught inorganic often. I have rarely heard the term "heavy metal" (at least ourside of the music world) discussed by chemists.

- "Today's lecture is about Heavy Metal Chemistry"?
- "The national award for Heavy Metal Chemistry"?
- "The journal Heavy Metal Chemistry"?
- "This research group/center/grant is focused on heavy metals"?
I thought it might be some sort of physicsy jargon, but Greenwood and Earnshaw use the term, often referring to Pb. The main problem is that the "heavy metal" is ill-defined. Consequently, the article (like metalloid) becomes a forum for WP:SYNTHESIS decorated with eye-candy. The term is used in toxicology and environmental fields. But, like metalloid, this article will likely attract accolades from nonpractioners.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot: While I certainly agree with your take on the topic, I believe the issue under discussion here is a much narrower one: should the article Heavy metal (elements) be listed as one of Wikipedia's very best articles? Maybe we should delete the article, but as you say there are references that use the term. Rather we are just focused here on the issue of quality control. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it is not considered to be one of Wikipedia's best or even good article. But the way that these nominations work is that all sorts of wannabe chemists will be impressed by technical jargon and fancy pictures. The specific aspect that worries me is the synthesis aspect. I think that Wikipedia would be better off without this thing. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]