Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hydrogen/archive1

Hydrogen

Nominating hydrogen for my 1000th edit. Toothpaste 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Toothpaste, congrats on your 1000th edit. I really like this article, and hope that the nomination succeeds. A few opening comments:
  • Table at top: 'colorless' is a funny epithet above that brown, tube-like thing.
  • Query question marks against 'magnetic ordering'.
  • You might consider engaging more readers at the start by elaborating just a little on 'Scientists are now researching new methods for hydrogen production.' Perhaps point out hydrogen's potential as a partial solution to greenhouse?
  • The level of explanation of terms is a little inconsistent. Your (now deleted) first sentence in 'Hydrogen atom' was a bit simplistic, yet then you hit us with 'Coulomb force' and 'spectral lines' a sentence later. I know they're linked, but since the text is not overly long, you might consider glossing a few of the terms that lend themselves to brief, less technical explanation, leaving those that cannot be simply explained as links. This might encourage more non-chemists to stay engaged throughout.
  • The sections 'Notable characteristics' (which is a misnomer, I think) and 'Hydrogen atom' (which is stubby), might be conflated under the heading 'Basic features'. Both sections currently start by talking about the same thing from slightly different angles.

Well done indeed! Tony 08:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I think that might be a mistake in the photo, perhaps, since the photo of helium looks like the exact same thing. I consulted all the books I used in helping to write the article on the magnetic ordering, but there was no information. I fixed your other three comments, though. Thank you for helping out. Toothpaste 09:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Everything it should be. Doesn't need an image under "Appearance" but not critical --PopUpPirate 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the moment. Lots of good content but there are some points I'd like to see addressed:
  • What's a lifting gas? Term is used in intro but not explained.
  • I think the intro could summarise more of the article content.
  • Intro gives a slightly different etymology to the history section
  • The explanation of the hydrogen spectrum seems a bit unclear and slightly inaccurate to me.
  • You say that in space H exists as individual atoms - true, but they can be huge clouds of individual atoms; see H I region and H II region, which probably should be linked to.
  • powering the universe - not really correct. Hydrogen fusion powers stars.
  • Applications section is mostly list, which should be converted to prose.
  • The ground state energy level of the electron in a Hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which is equivalent to an ultraviolet photon of roughly 92 nm. - I understand what this means, but then I've got a PhD in the study of astronomical spectra - not sure a layman would understand this. The following paragraph is a bit patronisingly written in my opinion.
    • Just to add to this, could be worth mentioning in this bit that when the average photon energy in the early universe dropped below 13.6eV, hydrogen recombined and the previously opaque universe became transparent. Incidentally the wavelength is 91.2nm. Worldtraveller 10:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of the stuff in the 'see also' section should be discussed in this article. Generally it's considered that see also sections are redundant, as anything mentioned in them should be discussed in the main article.
  • General suggestion - you could give the equations for the proton-proton cycle and the CNO cycle, they're quite simple, and informative I would think. Also, an image of an H II region and/or Jupiter could be quite nice and illustrative. Worldtraveller 15:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that I'm not sure 'introduction' is synonymous with 'summary'. It should prepare the reader for the more detailed information to come, and allow her to navigate more easily through the article. It may define the scope, or may not. Tony 15:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

True, the terms are not synonymous - I should have said 'lead section' instead of 'intro' - sloppy conflation on my part. WP:LS states that The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Worldtraveller 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not at all comprehensive, and includes significantly dubious material. Paracelsus story is, at best, an unverifiable legend; is it really plausible that he was the first to use acids on metals? Hydrogen is not difficult to produce in large quantities -- the economics may be difficult, but not the process. The energy levels/quantum mechanics section is simplified to the point of meaninglessness, and conflates early quantum theory with later quantum mechanics. Fuel cell use goes back at least forty years, apparently predating significant alternative fuel proposals. Chemical reactivity of molecular hydrogen is at least as significant a factor in absence of atmospheric hydrogen as light molecular weight. Most conspicuous omission is discussion of nuclear fusion power generation research. Problems with tone of article, which mixes high-school level writing with more appropriately rigorous discussions. Monicasdude 16:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has objected to dozens of FACs and, as far as I can tell, has never cast a supporting vote. He's of course free to do this, but I note this here so that Raul can take this into consideration in a close vote. This editor is pleased to impose elite science journal standards on others even while his own prose falls far short of those heights, and is pleased also to make cracks like the "high-school level writing" gibe above just to give an extra twist of the knife along with his incessant no votes. This sort of thing is just an unnecessary downer and really I just feel his votes should be discounted until he can get past all this self-vaunting at others' expense. JDG 06:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has spent an inordinate amount of time posting malicious nonsense aimed in my direction after no other editors supported his position in an edit war he started with me. I haven't objected to "dozens of FACs" -- I've posted on less than two dozen. I think that this article -- like too many recent candidates -- fails the comprehensiveness standard, and falls far short of the "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" standard. I make no apology for saying that articles on scientific topics here should be held to a higher standard of rigor than high school science texts; I think that point should hardly need to be stated. Monicasdude 23:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor now has five or so fellow editors diverting their time and attention to an RfC with one purpose: to get him to pause, reflect on his bullying ways and change them so that even more time and attention isn't sunk into the endless tussles, dustups, conflagrations and kabuki dances he kicks up literally everywhere he goes. So far these efforts have been approximately as effective as a guy with no arms throwing jello shots at an 80 foot tall titanium-hulled robot remotely controlled by an evil mastermind in an Arctic bunker, but we keep on keepin on. Wish us luck, gentle colleagues. JDG 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate your frustration at JDG's tone, but there's no choice but to address his/her comments as best as possible; if any of them are unreasonable, they should be fairly easy to debunk in a few sentences. Maybe JDG has a few valid points (I don't know). I say this as a supporter of this nomination. Tony 07:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Whose frustration at my tone?? Are you trying to say my frustration at Monicasdude's tone? JDG 16:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, got the names wrong; yeah. your frustration at Monic's tone. Tony 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)