Wikipedia:Featured article review/Titanium/archive2

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) 3:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) [1].

---

Titanium

Notified: Mav, Smokefoot, Double sharp, Pzzp, Materialscientist, Vsmith, WP Elements, WP Rocks and minerals, talk page notification 2021-03-27

Review section

This 2003 promotion was last reviewed at FAR in 2007 during the push to add inline citations on older FAs. It has uncited text throughout, as well as dated text (see History section as but one example, but uses and production need updates), and a comprehensive literature survey is needed. Also, uses a press release for production forecast, and sources like this one. Marginal external links. I haven't examined the prose or MOS issues, but immediately noticeable are MOS:SANDWICHing and MOS:ACCIM (images at bottom of section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I can't help much for this one, since my literature collection is mostly for the rarer elements. A while back I put in citations for what I could find in Greenwood & Earnshaw, but that's a fairly general inorganic-chemistry textbook and it doesn't cover everything that this article covers. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have added and updates refs and production data, also improved image placement. I've checked some reviews and haven't found major changes in Ti application areas. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SG Review:

• The infobox is a nightmare; I have relocated the first image to avoid MOS:SANDWICH because of the excessive length of the infobox, which pushes the image well below the section where it should be. There is too much content in the infobox for me to check whether all is cited in the body of the article.
  • Just a note, infoboxes for chemical elements are generally cited to a central repository of data from handbooks (List of data references for chemical elements) – you'll get a link there if you click the "references" at the bottom of the infobox. Double sharp (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have removed punctuation from sentence fragments in image captions, and added punctuation for full sentences in image captions.
• See also needs attention. I removed those already linked in the article. Why is suboxide listed there, but not used in article? If Titanium in Africa and Titanium in zircon geothermometry and VSMPO-AVISMA are notable enough to be in See also, why aren't they covered in this article?
• Citation cleanup needs and reliability of sources, samples only on a quick glance:
  • Titanium. Mindat
  • Missing page no. Kleefisch, E.W., ed. (1981). Industrial Application of Titanium and Zirconium. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. ISBN 978-0-8031-0745-8.
  • This is a press release: not formatted and not adequate for what it is citing - Compact Powerhouse: Inside Corvette Z06’s LT4 Engine 650-hp supercharged 6.2L V-8 makes world-class power in more efficient package. media.gm.com. 20 August 2014
  • Flower is listed in the Bibliography but never used in the article
  • Another press release, MEDRS source needed: "Titanium foams replace injured bones". Research News. 1 September 2010. Archived from the original on 4 September 2010. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
  • Significantly, the Medical uses section sourcing should comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. There is a lot; here is one sample:
    • One study indicates a possible connection between titanium and yellow nail syndrome.[117] (cited to a 10-year-old primary study).
  • What makes this reliable? https://www.pobjoy.com/us/world-firsts ... sample only, there is more.
• There are one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article.
  • I stopped checking after these few; a review of all sources and citations is in order.
• Dated text, sample only, "Because of its durability, titanium has become more popular for designer jewelry (particularly, titanium rings).[96] (Cited to 1988)
• The next paragraph repeats the same wording: copyedit needed with better organization of text. Titanium's durability, light weight, and dent and corrosion resistance make it useful for watch cases.[96] Light weight and durability are repeated throughout the product mentions. It is obvious that this article has grown over time, with bits added piecemeal, text not well integrated.
• Attention to wikilinking needed, sample, what is picomolar? is about 4 picomolar in the ocean.
  • I linked this one to the article where it's defined. Double sharp (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• MOS:CURRENT (and cited to 1988): "About fifty grades of titanium alloys are designed and currently used, although only a couple of dozen are readily available commercially.[67]"

I stopped there; these are samples only based on a quick look. Sourcing and citation needs attention, and datedness examined, before looking further at prose. Unless someone is willing/able to take on a top-to-bottom refreshing of this article, the nom should move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Some relatively easier-to-fix items have been addressed, but the substantial issues will required sustained and dedicated attention, which is not happening. Moving to FARC does not preclude that the real work still could or might happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC per sourcing concerns raised by Sandy above. I also think the layout of the article needs work, with many short and one-sentence paragraphs throughout. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness, prose and style. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist no major improvements, concerns still remain, particularly (for me) around formating. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, issues persist (including datedness, sourcing, listy prose, and organization); needed overhaul has not happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - a lot to do, and progress seems to have halted without reaching the largest issues. Hog Farm _Talk 02:39, 11 February 2022 (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) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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