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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

Heavy metal (elements)

Notified: Chemistry WikiProject, Physics WikiProject

Review section

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)

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)

• 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)

  @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)

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)

There is an orange banner at the top of the page for failed verifications, and some failed verification tags. Have these been resolved? Were the citations of concerns checked in a previous spot check? Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Most (more detail in the article Talk page) have not been resolved; a few have either by correcting or deleting claims. There are also many obscure sources which are unavailable so have not been checked. Based upon the failure rate so far I expect a significant number of those to fail verification.

From what I can see in the history no spot check was ever done, the article went directly to FAR and there was never a GAR (where reference spot checking is standard). Ldm1954 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

N.B., I just did a single source spot check, picking ref [97] [124] which turned out to be an available PhD thesis. The source does not support what is claimed in the text, so I added another {{failed verification}}. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delist. I prefer that we change the status back to B from FA; it seems this article never was a WP:GA, it skipped that step. I think it will then be less controversial to do the major rewrite that will be required to replace all the unverified citations and correct the coverage. The large number of unverified sources (including too many that say something quite different from what the text claims) is disturbing, as I stated in the original nomination. The issue of coverage which both Johnjbarton and Smokefoot describe is also something where it will be simpler (IMO) to reach consensus for with a B level article. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delist no one has addressed the verification concerns. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.