Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Periodic table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Periodic table[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

This is one of the holdovers from the Brilliant Prose days (see: Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science). Even though I've done considerable work on the table and on many element articles, I haven't much touched the prose on this page. As is, it is not a bad article but it is still fairly incomplete: There is not much mention at all about periodic trends (which is the central reason why the table is so useful). An FA article on this subject should have an entire rather long and subsectioned section on the different trends. The structure of the table is also barely covered (note that groups are covered but not periods or series). The history section is way too short (and no, simply pasting-in History of the periodic table will not work). In addition, the lead section is inadequate and there do not appear to be any references. I do plan to fix all the major issues in the future but in the mean-time I don't think this article should be listed as an example of our best work. --mav 04:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Yikes, you're right. Definitely not FA quality now. I anticipate supporting once you make the above outlined changes. Please use good references and cite important facts directly to the source. - Taxman 16:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The article is good as far as it goes and does Wikipedia no shame but it clearly isn't comprehensive enough to merit FA-status. -- Haukurth 01:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The table itself is well-done, but the rest of the article falls way short of qualifying. --Michael Snow 17:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not comprehensive enough, also needs references. Paul August 18:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - needs references. --Neoconned 22:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It seems to be of featured qualify, so far as it goes - perhaps it could be moved to a more accurate title to reflect its limited nature. I would keep it, but I can see I am swimming against the tide. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)