Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chalcogen/1

Chalcogen[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept.—Retrohead (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axiosaurus has expressed concerns on the talk page of this article that certainly warrant a reassessment of the article's GA status. I therefore request a community reassessment to fix the problems Axiosaurus has pointed out, as well as point out and fix new ones, so that the article may conform to the GA criteria. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob, I'm struggling to see what the nominator finds unsuitable in the article. Judging by his comments at the talk page, I assume he doubts whether you are academically knowledgeable in this area, but that is against the Wikipedia pillars, which say anyone can contribute to the project. Unless he points out what doesn't meet the GA criteria, I'm inclined to keep the page under the good article status.--Retrohead (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrohead, Axiosaurus has pointed out what they deem to be omissions in the article in Talk:Chalcogen#Possible improvements. I think Axiosaurus' key issue is that the article tries to treat oxygen with the other chalcogens; this can get very forced because O is too different from the rest of the group.

The chalcogens are one of the hardest groups to cover well because the elements are very different despite all having six electrons in the outer shell – something which the article does not address. The group basically splits into O (high electronegativity, easily forms double bonds and H bonds), S and Se (similar), Te (similar to S and Se but a little different and more metallic), Po (suddenly metallic, though not so well-characterized), and Lv (laboratory curiosity). Trying to cover them all together is very forced and the article would be massively improved if it covered these separately.

Re qualifications – yes, you don't need to be academically knowledgeable in the area to contribute, but to make a good article I think you need to do some research and consult at least the usual references in the area (most of which split O away from the rest of the group at the very least). Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I well-educated in chemistry, but according to the Mendeleev table of elements, all of them fall in the same category. What I think the issue is here, you believe the article should be divided in smaller pages I order the topic to be better presented. That's fine, but the thing is none of that actually endangers the article's grade.--Retrohead (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I don't believe that. What I believe is that the chalcogens are a diverse group and that the article should state the differences. However, it doesn't: it glosses over them, and tries to explain away O as being similar to the other chalcogens. It just isn't so.

There are also many other major omissions in the article that can be seen from looking at how the topic is presented in many chemistry textbooks. There is not enough mention of the difference between H₂O and the other hydrogen chalcogenides – and here the differencing in forming chains between the chalcogens proper can be talked about (but isn't). And there are also inaccuracies like the mention of tellurate as TeO²⁻
₄ – usually it is polymeric instead. And oddly, despite the article's continued insistence of grouping O with the chalcogens even when it doesn't make sense, nitrogen compounds aren't included with the chalcogen-pnictogen compound discussion. Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the lead section: "Often, oxygen is treated separately from the other chalcogens, sometimes even excluded from the scope of the term "chalcogen" altogether, due to its very different chemical behavior from sulfur, selenium, tellurium, and polonium" --Jakob (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so why not accentuate these differences throughout the article? You can have separate sections for O and everything else when covering compounds. (Also, Po isn't really similar to S, Se, and Te, though everyone calls it a chalcogen: you might want to also mention this.) Just like the hydrogen chalcogenides are mentioned in many places, but oddly don't have their own section, which they certainly deserve. Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: After little more than a month, it wasn't established a clear consensus for delisting the article. Subsequent improvements on prose didn't take place either, so I'll be closing the reassessment soon.--Retrohead (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting process. Because I have been engaged elsewhere I was unable to contribute. Reading the above I too see no concensus for change of status but as the debate has only two protagonists, one of whom was the main author of the improved article that is hardly surprising! Perhaps others should have been involved or the time limit extended. Anyway putting to one side the suggestion that the thrust of the article is misplaced and should focus on trends, many of its problems relate to its scientific /technical content. Simply put key areas have been missed and there are inaccuracies. The article should be derated as it fails the Good article criterion relating to breadth of coverage (sic "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). As said earlier anyone can add material to an article, and the natural wikipedia process of commenting and editing then leads to the removal of any inaccurate / inappropriate material. This process was not given sufficient time to occur before the article was put up for GA. The rating process is a little different from editing. The rating of any article places an implicit onus on the reviewer to ensure that they have a sufficient understanding of the topic involved to make a judgement on the breadth of coverage. Chalcogen is a very broad topic, usually covered in two chapters in text books, and I would hope that anyone rating chalcogen either had a good knowledge of the topic or at the very least had researched it. Axiosaurus (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]