Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/archive6

Atomic theory

You may be looking for what was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/archive1, see Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've touched up the article a little (every section now has references).Kurzon 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This should be redirected to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/Archive2.--Rmky87 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Done.--Rmky87 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — Overall a pretty decent article; the writing and layout look good. But I do have a few items that might need addressing:
  • "around the turn of the century" should state the actual century.
    • Done.Kurzon 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Rather than "true" fundamental particles, how about just subatomic particles?
    • This was deliberate, to emphasize the fact that atoms weren't really the fundamental particles chemists once thought they were.Kurzon 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Do we know with absolute certainty that physicists are now studying the "true" fundamental particles? I just have some qualms about the absolute nature of the statement in the text. — RJH (talk)
        • You have a point. I've redone that last sentence.Kurzon 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-use of article name in sub-headings conflicts with the MoS. (C. F. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Wording).
    • Done.Kurzon 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The sections on Indian and Islamic atomism are unreferenced, as is the paragraph on Antoine Lavoisier.
    • Sections rewritten and referenced.Kurzon 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "thusly"? A less obsolete expression would be preferable.
    • DoneKurzon 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "...predict transition rates or describe fine and hyperfine structure" employs terms that would be unfamiliar to most readers. Some clarification may be beneficial.
    • Removed. I did some research into this and found it to be somewhat inaccurate. I rewrote the entire paragraph.Kurzon 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In the image displaying the orbitals, could you explain the purpose of the blue and the orange colors? (Especially in the second from the left.) The same caption on the Atom page explains it slightly better.
    • Done.Kurzon 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. — RJH (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Refs not in a consistent format either.Rlevse 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)