397:
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.
396:
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
295:
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
120:
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
323:
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
462:
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
186:
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
202:
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
371:
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
351:
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.
240:
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.
170:
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.
203:
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.
158:
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
191:
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. --
183:
21:
182:
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
121:
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.
489:: No work on-going and significant issues remain: comprehensiveness concerns, one sentence paragraphs, formulae dropped at the end of sections without contextualization.
136:
307:
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.
523:
44:
77:
135:
to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Lead(II) nitrate}} and leave a summary of notifications here as in
440:. It is as comprehensive as possible for the topic. If anyone can prove that more comprehensive information about the history and production
34:
17:
428:
Even if the worst wrong facts is corrected (1c), it doesn't include many details about major topics like history and production.
504:
337:
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.
508:
480:
453:
432:
419:
401:
389:
361:
346:
328:
317:
300:
279:
245:
235:
223:
207:
195:
175:
163:
151:
125:
109:
217:
I don't understand what you mean regarding the molar mass. First, how is it wrong? Second, why can't it be fixed?
372:
Lead(II) nitrate article does not comply with the required quality for the FA designation. I think it does.
492:
229:
If you meant that the number of significant figures was wrong, fine. I've updated the article accordingly.
147:
381:
271:
81:
357:
93:
97:
89:
500:
101:
85:
334:
342:
313:
140:
375:
265:
61:
132:
475:
429:
398:
353:
204:
172:
122:
106:
187:
problem with the chemical formulas. They all correspond to the process discussed in the
449:
325:
297:
333:
This is not a "discussion". This is a discussion. The purpose is to determine whether
496:
416:
467:
exactly? Surely someone knows whether it was 1801 or 1899? Makes a big difference.
338:
309:
414:
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c).
468:
160:
445:
242:
232:
220:
192:
444:, then we can worry about adding it to the article or de-featuring it. --
296:
themes we could devise a more exciting and at least contemporary topic.--
522:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
43:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at
516:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
47:). No further edits should be made to this page.
526:. No further edits should be made to this page.
131:Grrahnbahr, please follow the instructions at
33:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
524:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review
324:more compelling topic than this one. IMHO.--
45:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review
262:: this article is really FA quality.
7:
28:
1:
509:02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
481:10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
280:22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
246:19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
236:15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
224:15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
208:15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
196:11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
164:21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
152:07:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
126:20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
110:11:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
454:09:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
433:16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
420:13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
402:20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
390:21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
362:01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
347:00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
329:19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
318:19:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
301:16:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
176:20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
543:
56:02:34, 25 December 2007.
519:Please do not modify it.
40:Please do not modify it.
35:featured article review
76:Notifications left at
511:
495:comment added by
68:Review commentary
534:
521:
490:
478:
473:
388:
278:
144:
62:Lead(II) nitrate
52:The article was
42:
22:Lead(II) nitrate
542:
541:
537:
536:
535:
533:
532:
531:
530:
517:
476:
469:
442:actually exists
410:
408:FARC commentary
373:
289:I vote against.
263:
142:
70:
65:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
540:
538:
529:
528:
484:
483:
423:
422:
409:
406:
405:
404:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
304:
303:
284:
283:
251:
250:
249:
248:
238:
226:
211:
210:
199:
198:
179:
178:
167:
166:
155:
154:
115:
114:
113:
112:
69:
66:
64:
59:
58:
50:
49:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
539:
527:
525:
520:
514:
513:
512:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
488:
482:
479:
474:
472:
466:
461:
458:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
431:
427:
421:
418:
415:
412:
411:
407:
403:
400:
395:
394:
393:
391:
387:
385:
384:
379:
378:
376:Wim van Dorst
363:
359:
355:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
327:
322:
321:
320:
319:
315:
311:
308:
302:
299:
294:
291:
290:
286:
285:
281:
277:
275:
274:
269:
268:
266:Wim van Dorst
261:
258:
257:
253:
252:
247:
244:
239:
237:
234:
230:
227:
225:
222:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
209:
206:
201:
200:
197:
194:
190:
185:
181:
180:
177:
174:
169:
168:
165:
162:
157:
156:
153:
149:
145:
138:
134:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
118:
111:
108:
104:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
74:
73:
72:
71:
67:
63:
60:
57:
55:
48:
46:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
518:
515:
486:
485:
470:
464:
463:Europe: but
459:
441:
437:
436:
425:
424:
413:
382:
377:
374:
370:
306:
305:
292:
288:
287:
272:
267:
264:
259:
255:
254:
228:
216:
188:
119:
116:
78:WP Chemistry
75:
53:
51:
39:
32:
491:—Preceding
335:FA criteria
139:. Thanks,
137:this sample
82:Wimvandorst
430:Grrahnbahr
399:Grrahnbahr
354:Grrahnbahr
205:Grrahnbahr
173:Grrahnbahr
123:Grrahnbahr
117:1 b) 1 c)
107:Grrahnbahr
326:Smokefoot
298:Smokefoot
189:preceding
98:Wknight94
94:Pyschim62
90:WJBscribe
505:contribs
497:Marskell
493:unsigned
417:Marskell
102:Grimlock
86:Walkerma
20: |
487:Closing
339:Joelito
310:Joelito
293:Comment
260:Comment
143:Georgia
54:removed
477:(talk)
460:Remove
426:Remove
133:WP:FAR
161:V8rik
141:Sandy
16:<
501:talk
471:Tony
465:when
450:talk
446:Itub
438:Keep
383:Talk
358:talk
343:talk
314:talk
273:Talk
256:Keep
243:Itub
233:Itub
221:Itub
193:Itub
148:Talk
100:and
184:FAC
507:)
503:•
452:)
392:.
360:)
345:)
316:)
241:--
231:--
219:--
150:)
105:.
96:,
92:,
88:,
84:,
80:,
37:.
499:(
448:(
386:)
380:(
356:(
341:(
312:(
282:.
276:)
270:(
146:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.