Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].


Metalloid[edit]

Metalloid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A metalloid is kind of a cross between a metal and a nonmetal. They have a mix of metallic, nonmetallic and in between properties.

One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, suggested I ask User:John if he could copyedit this article. I did, he did, and it looks very sharp now. User:Dirac66 then checked the article, was happy with the standard of copy-editing, and made a few technical observations that I've addressed. More details are at the metalloid talk page here and here. Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John[edit]

Support. As Sandh has generously pointed out I did a lot of work on this article. I know it intimately and have no reservations about supporting its promotion. --John (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took out "In contrast, Jones (writing on the role of classification in science) observed that, 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.'<ref>[[#Jones2010|Jones 2010, p. 169]]</ref>" because I do not think it is essential to the article. Is Jones writing specifically about metalloids or is it just a general comment on classification? We already have enough about the difficulty of classifying elements as metalloids in any case. We used to have more. "In contrast" is one of the markers I look for in copyediting. So are "additionally", "actually" and "however". Unless the author has explicitly contrasted two things, we shouldn't use this term. --John (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good. If I may, I'd like to keep Jones as a plain note (without the 'In contrast'). He isn't writing about metalloids. He's writing about whether or not Pluto is a planet and, in that context, the role of classification in science. His writing is particularly cogent, and the parallel of what used to be the lack of a definition of a planet, to the lack of an agreed definition of a metalloid, is striking and interesting. Of course, I won't say that in the note but I can hope that someone else may read Jones and enjoy the analogies. Just replace wherever he says "Pluto" and "planet" with "selenium" (e.g.) and "metalloid" :) Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Designate[edit]

Comment: I notice polonium and astatine are both marked as "Inconsistent" in the top infobox graphic, but only astatine is outlined in black in the bottom graphic. Shouldn't they both be outlined or non-outlined? —Designate (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "inconsistency" at work ;-). The blue colors show the statistic outcome, the periodic table shows reasonings for the individual elements. Both statements are valid and sourced, but their contradiction requires explanation. As there is no space for that in the infobox (for a reason), the micro periodic table should go.
Note: I added the micro periodic table for overview, without giving it much thought back then [2]. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom graphic could stay as the caption says it's 'a' periodic table, rather than 'the' periodic table. it's also linked to the periodic table article. I'm not fussed either way. Designate: if this would still seem to be too confusing I'll ask for the bottom graphic to be deleted. Thank you for your thought provoking comment. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh, as Designate simply pointed out: it may be right & sourceable, but it is unexplained there. That is a sin. And I think that that table box is not the place to explain it, so removal is my choice. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the top graphic you have four categories: Commonly, Inconsistently, Less commonly, and Rarely. Seems the bottom graphic could include the top two designations, or the top three, or all four, but right now it's jarring because it doesn't seem to have been made with the same reasoning as the top graphic. —Designate (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, could you please remove the bottom graphic? Sandbh (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the one at the bottom of the infobox. —Designate (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see what you meant now. It is annoying that the code is so complex that it will require an expert to make this adjustment. --John (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the small periodic table is colored based on this code. All the elements have a |category listed—maybe astatine and polonium can both be changed to category=unknown instead of metalloid/metal. The individual page for astatine calls it "Metalloid (disputed)" while the page for polonium calls it "Other metal (disputed)". It doesn't seem to me that they should be given the same color on the top chart at Metalloid if At is more commonly recognized as a metalloid than Po. —Designate (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the small PT at the base of the infobox. Deleted two lines I think) of code. I must've been tired when I asked DePiep to do it, as I could've done it myself if I'd looked harder. I'll restore the PT at the very end of the article on the presumption that this'll be OK to restore. Sandbh (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --John (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from R8R Gtrs[edit]

Support. During the first FAC, I wasn't confident the article deserved the FA status, but Sandbh refused to give up, and the article was getting better and better over time. I've given a lengthy comment during the second FAC. The issues I raised were resolved, and I didn't support only because I suddenly lost the opportunity to get online, check, and support. The article has remained FA-worthy ever since.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry Mitchell[edit]

This is not at all my are of expertise; I'm use to writing history articles, not science articles, but this is a really interesting subject so I thought I'd take a look.

  • Thank you very much Harry. I'm working my way through these, other than those John has astutely edited, and will respond further shortly. Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The feasibility of establishing a specific definition has been questioned by whom?
  • That would be Hawkes. I've hopefully made this clearer by using a semicolon to join this sentence to the one that follows it, since the latter sentence ends with the applicable citation. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs to attributed in the prose; we shouldn't expect the reader to read the citation to work out that the phrase is not in Wikipedia's 'voice'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classifying an element as a metalloid has been described... ditto?
  • No, that is Sharp, as per citation at the end of the sentence. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.' You need a citation after a direct quote (I see you have one just before the quote; perhaps that could be moved to the end of the sentence?)
  • You need at least one citation in the 'physical and chemical' section
  • This section is the lede/high level summary for the following two sections, which include sourced text, and a main article link. As such, I didn't think it necessitated citation. I'm happy to revisit this however, if you feel that this will not do. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be done based on the extent to which an element exhibits properties relevant to such status. Is that from Hawkes? If it is, perhaps the citation could moved to the end of that sentence for clarity?
  • selenium […] is used to improve the workability of stainless steels what does 'workability' mean in this context?
    • Changed to machinability and wikilinked. Good catch. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could do with a citation at the end of paragraphs two and six of the 'biological agents' section
  • Compounds of antimony are used as antiprotozoan drugs, and in some veterinary preparations. 'antiprotozoan' isn't a term I'm familiar with, and I'd be surprised if most lay people were familiar with it; an example of veterinary uses might be nice.
  • I've reworded and simplified this sentence, and added a citation. Sandbh (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tellurium is not considered particularly toxic. As little as two grams of sodium tellurate, if administered, can be lethal. Those seem to be two contradictory statements.
    • I think it emphasises the difference between the element and its compound. Edited to reflect this. Please fix it if I have misunderstood. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch 'with's, eg beryllium and lead are noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used...; this kind of use of 'with' is generally discouraged
    • I've taken quite a stern hack at the 'with's. Better? --John (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • compounds such as sodium arsenite or sodium arsenate are effective flame retardants for wood but were less frequently used... Were or are? 'Were' suggests they're now being used more frequently; is that the case?
    • Fixed tense. This is an error I introduced, so good catch again. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • requires a 'heroic quench rate' Who is this quoting? Why use a quote instead of a plain English phrase?
  • Kaminow & Li, as per end of sentence. I quite liked the concise way they expressed this hence kept it as a quote rather than recasting. I've now cited them after the quote, too. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms amphoteric element and semiconductor are problematic as some elements referred to as metalloids do not show marked amphoteric behaviour or semiconductivity in their most stable forms. There's much less detail there than on the other problematic terms; is that deliberate? You need a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • I've added examples of such elements, plus citations. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of this latter term has more recently been discouraged Try to use active voice where practical; who discouraged the use of the term? IUPAC or somebody else?
  • That was Atkins, as per the citation. (He also happens to be a past chair of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Education). Sandbh (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to make this clear -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'remarkably inert to all acids, including hydrofluoric' according to whom? Perhaps spell out the what's remarkable about its non-reactivity with hydrofluoric acid (I can guess that it's remarkable because you mention boron does react with fluorine, but it would be nice not to make the reader guess)
  • That is according to Rochow, as per the citation after the quote. I'll see if I can add something about the highly corrosive nature of hydrofluoric acid. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to show that it's Rochow speaking; note added to elaborate what's remarkable about non-reactivity to HF -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can form alloys with many metals; most of these are brittle. Most of the alloys or most of the metals? I'm guessing the former, but it's ambiguous as it is.
    • Reworded for less ambiguity. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the external link on electrode potential? External links shouldn't be linked inline per the MoS.
  • Classifying aluminium as a metalloid is disputed by whom? You cite some examples in the footnote, but it would be nice for the prose to elaborate. What's the scientific consensus? From the context, I'm guessing that it's to treat aluminium as a metal, but again, it would be nice to spell it out.
  • I've edited and restructured this section. It still starts with the same opening sentence but I've included a citation to a reference guide book on metallic materials. That's the closest I could get to scientific consensus that aluminium is a metal. The next paragraph is the one that says aluminium is sometimes classified as a metalloid. That's immediately followed by the disputing paragraph, with the authors doing the disputing given in the citation. Then there is the concluding paragraph with more moderate or nuanced views. I tend to minimize the use of active voice in an encyclopedia article such as this. Sandbh (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and may be more appropriately classified as either Do you mean it is sometimes or by some people or that it could be?

More generally:

  • I think the article uses a lot of technical terms, which makes it less accessible than it could be; I'd really love some brief parenthetical explanations of terms (I'll provide examples when I get chance)
  • OK, that's good to hear. Happy to oblige. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch uses of 'with'; use as a connective is discouraged (eg "p-block, with its main axis anchored by boron"; "noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used")
  • I love the comparisons with chemicals people know about (eg steel, tap water); how would you feel about adding some more? Not overdoing it, but enough that the reader has something to which they can compare the chemicals covered in the article.
  • Very happy to try for more as I like the value of comparisons with ordinary things. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I write history articles, I like to see the author introduced by their full name with an explanation of their credentials (eg "the British metallurgist Cecil Desch") rather than just by surname (eg "Phillips and Williams suggested that"...); I think it would be nice to see this here.
  • Not sure if that might be more particular to history writing? I don't often encounter it in scientific writing unless it is for the giants. I'm not sure I see it that much in arts writing either. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is obviously a labour of love and you've clearly put a lot of time into it. I don't see anything that would preclude it becoming an FA, but there's a little bit of work still to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much appreciated. Always good to hear from non-experts. You see things and ask questions that aficionados would overlook or rarely think to ask. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we may be done here for now Harry, thank you. (I'll keep an eye out for any ripe technical terms, and possibilities for new comparisons with ordinary things). Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replied above on a couple of issues, and there are a couple of others I'll get to when I can (nothing too serious), but I'm happy with the changes so far. Great work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again; all looking good so far (a few small things for me to do still). Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

I'm no chemist so I'm concentrating on accessibility. Generally I agree with Harry's comments above, though not about "introducing" noted chemists in the literature. It's obvious they are chemists, so only anyone who isn't a chemist needs to be introduced, imo.

  • Thank you Johnbod. I appreciate your interest and observations. I'm working through these. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "packing efficiencies" has a whole para, but is linked but not explained, which it should be, very briefly.
  • "Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion" is only explained in the notes, which is not ideal. Failing a short article, perhaps the explanation should go in the text.
  • Done, but this one was a bit trickier to explain concisely. There is still a somewhat technical term ('molar volume') although it has a link. Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of "Number, composition and alternative treatments" pretty much entirely repeats, with added names of researchers, what has been said already. Better to merge it into the first time round? The first para of "Distinctive" is rather the same.
    • I've actioned the first suggestion and I tentatively agree it looks better. Sandbh, what do you think? --John (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am in a rush; will respond as soon as Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one seems at least OK and a clever relocation. I'll have a closer look and post here if needs be. (Puffing to keep up!). Sandbh (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have trimmed and restructured to remove duplication. Sandbh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the section on medical etc uses, but selenium is missing in the final bit. As I'm sure you know, it's inclusion in dietry supplement pills etc has been criticised recently.
  • I've added some content about selenium as an essential nutrient and its medicinal applications. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small atomic size, relatively high ionization energy, and its having fewer valence electrons (three) than atomic orbitals (four) available for bonding. With only three valence electrons, simple covalent bonding is electron deficient with respect to the octet rule." Eek, help! More links please!
  • "Monographs" - Checking a couple, these don't seems to be used in the refs, so are what is normally called "further reading" on WP. This one "Vernon RE 2013, 'Which Elements are Metalloids?', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 1703–7, doi:10.1021/ed3008457", at 3-4 pages long, can't really be called a monograph, nor can Goldsmith and Hawkes, where only 2 page ranges are given. Others are sections or chapters in larger, more general, works. I'd just go with "further reading", maybe splitting the true monographs into a sub-section there.
  • Johnbod, my intent here was only to list the known single topic writings on metalloids, of which there are relatively few. I've changed the title of this section to 'Known monongraphs'. Here I'm using the broad meaning of 'monograph', as a written account of a single thing. I've added an explanatory note to that effect. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have split some too long paras and added links. More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again. I believe I may be done here for now, unless I happen to see any gremlins. Sandbh (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently unlinked: oxygen, crystal, semiconductor is apparently only linked in a table - not sure about the rules here, Valence electron, Covalent bond, allotropic, halide. Several if not all of these come from the single para about boron where I asked for more links above. A lot more work is obviously needed here. Some of these may seem very basic terms (but you link "diamond") but they aren't. I still haven't read beyond the boron section, but will do so when assured the linking has been checked throughout the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I missed this one. Have rechecked the article and added more wikilinks. Guidance is that generally, a link should appear only once in an article (upon the term's first occurrence in the text of the article) but if helpful for readers, links can be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. And articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles. Have used some judgement in deciding what to link; hopefully no oversights. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have read through the rest of the article, and would have some small points, but I don't know when I'll have time to write them up. The nom seems to have attracted enough support - if the delegates feel it is otherwise ready for promotion, please don't hold that up on my account. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph length (PL)[edit]

Could I please have some opinions about this?

PL has been area of interest to editors and reviewers of this article. Short paragraphs have sometimes been merged; long paragraphs have sometimes been split. All of these changes and associated comments have been well-intentioned. When I look back on them it seems to me they sometimes inadvertently result in paragraphs that cover more than one idea; and at other times they inadvertently split the idea being developed with the result that it becomes harder to comprehend. As well, the end result of some of these edits is that it's no longer possible to follow the bones of the article by reading just the topic/first sentence of each paragraph, which is the way I was taught how to use paragraphs.

Wikipedia guidance about PL is that they should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs. All quite reasonable.

The upshot is that I've shortened or merged some of the paragraphs in the article so that (a) each paragraph develops the single idea unit that is flagged in its topic sentence: and (b) there is a logical flow from topic sentence to topic sentence, throughout the article.

I'm hoping that these latest edits will still be FAC-acceptable. Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an issue of sheer length, especially when the material is dense (for many readers anyway). I split some paras when not editing on my usual machine but one with a smaller (laptop) screen, where with a table or picture at the side some paras lasted a whole screen. Heaven knows what they'd look like on a mobile. Allowing for screen-reading on a vast range of sceen sizes, I would err on the side of short paras, not worrying so much about developments of ideas. The "bones" are supposed to be in the lead anyway, though not all of them. Very long-looking paras just put readers off. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've split or re-split some of the longer paragraphs. I checked the article on a 13.3 notebook; no paras take up a whole screen. Checked on older iphone; most paras (>85%) fit on no more than one screen. Found some interesting external reading about paragraph length here and here. The recommendation you make about erring on the side of short paras, given the rise of small screens, is a good one. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Job done on this, as far as I'm concerned. As with images the multiplicity of screen sizes now has rather over-taken our guidance I think. Useful links. My own style seems to favour short paras, at least online; I was struck after the event by the contrast between my online comment here, #8 in a very narrow space and the preceding 7 in terms of para length. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility[edit]

The colour-keys in the periodic table extracts fail MOS:COLOUR. Non-colour indicators, like asterisks or superscript numbers, should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this was raised early on in the development of the article. I believe it is addressed in the text boxes accompanying the images in question. This text explains in words which elements are covered by which legend/colour key. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Sandbh's explanation answers (there is full textual descrtiption below). So it is not "colors only". Can Pigsonthewing agree? -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I gave myself a reminder when this was nominated previously that I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be, if promoted, the nominator's first FA. I'll wait a bit to see if any reviewer above wants to undertake that, otherwise I'll make a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "spotcheck of sources"? I presume you want me to check if the sources really give the facts mentioned in the article, and that they don't lift. I'm on it. Friesland Princess Parcly Taxel 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, sorry, I'll backtrack somewhat. I think the only things worth checking are the references that quote things straight out of the sources. Princess Parcly Taxel 04:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever[edit]

This is one of the best featured article candidates (FACs) I've ever read! It's properly neutral, has good prose, and is filled with amazing grammar. All the pictures in the article look fascinating, and its worth tons of references everywhere. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind feedback! Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing content[edit]

@John:@Designate:@R8R Gtrs:@Harry Mitchell:@Johnbod:@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever:
I added content re "Pyrotechnics" as a common application (an oversight), and "Abundance, extraction and cost" (polished from an earlier draft). Both copyedited by John. Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copy-edited it again. It is a good addition. --John (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting sources, claiming crowns?[edit]

Per the comment abve by @Ian Rose: and my replies to that I'm going to check the twelve (as I count) references that have direct quotes from their sources. The reference numbers are as of this revision, and if the flag isn't North Brabant's that means I haven't checked and cleared it yet.

  • #23: Salzburg (federal state)
  • #45: Vienna
  • #64: Vorarlberg
  • #65: Indonesia
  • #188: Monaco
  • #208: Hesse
  • #218: Canton of Solothurn
  • #375: Poland
  • #381: Tyrol (federal state)
  • #401: Upper Austria
  • #444: Singapore
  • #446: Conch Republic

...never mind.

I took this as meaning that the checker (User:Parcly Taxel) is happy with twelve direct quotes that they checked?hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am happy. Georgia (country) Georgia (U.S. state) Princess Parcly Taxel 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this has probably set a record for FAC duration but following the spotchecks by Parcly and Dirac66 I think it's finally ready to promote, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Metalloid/archive3&oldid=1075706215"