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 00:08, 6 February 2008.

Oxygen[edit]

previous FAC (21:43, 27 December 2007) and recent peer review (21 January 2008)
Check external links

Co-nomination between mav, Nergaal and WikiProject Elements This article had 26KB of prose before the FA push was started in mid-September. Since then I've added a bit over 20KB of prose and others have added more, making the total prose size 53KB before we moved the excess text to daughter articles (there is now 43KB of prose) and left, what I think, are great summaries here. Since this is a Vital Article covered by 3 different WikiProjects, bringing it to FA quality has been nothing short of a monumental effort that required a great deal of work from many different people. For example, Nergaal has extensively copyedited, cited and reorganized the article and other members of WikiProject Elements and other WikiProjects, especially (in no particular order) Sbharris, Pyrotec, Tameeria, Plantsurfer, Derek.cashman and others have helped bring this article to its current state. I certainly could not have done this alone. So, what else, if anything, is needed to bring this to to FA status? --mav (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that some of the detail should be dropped from the lead. For example, does the reader really need to be burdened with terms such as obligate anaerobic organisms? Indeed, the sentence However, free oxygen is toxic to obligate anaerobic organisms and was a poisonous waste product for early life on Earth contains a verbose tautology & should perhaps be shortened to However, free oxygen was a poisonous waste product for early life forms on Earth.

I'll post some more general comments when I've had time to read through the rest of the article. My initial impressions are favourable. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! The lead has been significantly refactored and I think we have addressed your concerns with it. --mav (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is far better now: condensing 4 paras into 3 was an improvement too. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that statement from the body since this article is about all aspects of oxygen. But since that is the dominant free form, that allotrope does get a lot of coverage in the article. I like your edits, BTW. --mav (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flattery is no way to get to FA status—but thanks all the same! It's looking good now. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It rarely hurts :) --mav (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point. We have started to make the distinction more clear when and where it might make a difference. The lead is already much more clear, I think. --mav (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed oxygen into dioxygen where was the case but wasn't clear enough. I also tried to make a clearer disambiguation message at the begining of the article. I hope it is better now, and please try to be specific if you still have problems with this (i.e. list problematic sections). Nergaal (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but I think you've gone overboard on this. I think we just have to live with the fact that in many applications (aviation, diving, even industry) oxygen is the accepted usage: using dioxygen will simply confuse many non-specialist readers. When the cabin of an aircraft is depressurized we expect to see oxygen masks drop down: the last thing the passengers want to hear is that prefix di-!
Perhaps you should establish at the top of the article that, unless otherwise stated, oxygen refers to O2. Usually the context will make it clear which you mean; only when ambiguity might arise should you use dioxygen. Otherwise it simply sounds pedantic. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and think that a good compromise is to make sure that the context is set correctly. In many cases that will require replacing dioxygen with oxygen gas if the context of the sentence does not make it clear that we are talking about free oxygen at STP. I see to this after work today. --mav (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - pedantic overuse of "dioxygen" is now history. --mav (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... & the article looks much better as a result! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the methods discussed are necessarily industrial. I would just call the section "production". I think it is normally implied in chemistry that "production" refers to (artificial) production by humans. The other "natural" forms or production are usually discussed under headings such as biosynthesis or geological cycles. Besides, "anthropogenic production" is a term that one hears most often in discussions of CO2 and global warming, and may bring the unintended connotation of "pollution", hardly a problem with oxygen! --Itub (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine: Hydrogen has Production (with 3 subheadings). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might be wrong, but I think this comes from the fact that the solutions to the Schrödinger equation have been calculated exactly for hydrogen, while for oxygen is faaar messier. Nergaal (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molecular oxygen would be at least confusing. Forms of molecular oxygen would be too verbose. I am not sure what better options are there, but IMO I think the same could be said about isotopes. Nevertheless, this problem could be solved by being extra-sure that the reader understands the meaning of allotropy from the first sentence in tha section. Nergaal (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Forms of molecular oxygen" does not sound awkward to me, and has the advantage of being easily understood as well as factually correct. But as I said, I won't insist.
Otherwise, a very long but well written and interesting article. I have not read all of it but from what I have seen I would support FA. Kosebamse (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Forms of molecular oxygen" could be unclear, for example 16O=16O and 16O=17O could be considered to be two different forms of molecular dioxygen. Also is the solid metallic allotrope mentioned actually molecular? Guest9999 (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metallic substances are not molecular (see metallic bond). Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so "Forms of molecular oxygen" would be an inaccurate title for a section that includes a metallic alotrope, irrespective of how awkward the wording sounds or how uncommon the scientific (but accurate) title is. Guest9999 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, and your point really made me laugh. The version now gives the same information without bieng Spocky :). As for the intro, you are right. Me and Mav spent a lot of time and edits on it, but it seems we still missed some points. Thanks for the observations. Nergaal (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fresh pair of eyes is always useful (I've certainly found this to be the case when I've been heavily involved in preparing an article). I'll continue scanning some of the other sections, though I'm certainly no expert on chemistry. I'm just playing devil's advocate & trying to represent the poor ignorant layman ... Good luck! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concentrating on the lead section because of its great importance in setting the tone for the rest of the article—not to mention the fact that many readers aren't going to read much further! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've gone ahead with my suggested changes. If you're happy with them I'll strike out the comment above. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS According to the French WP article Azote, Lavoisier coined the term azote. Why would he then have gone to the trouble of renaming it nitrogène? (The latter term does exist in French, but it is rarely used.) Could someone please check the source (Cook 1968:500)? Alternatively, you could just drop this sentence, which isn't really relevant in this article. If you do retain the sentence, the French spelling nitrogène should presumably be used. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PPS A quick Web search suggests that it was not Lavoisier but Jean-Antoine Chaptal who coined the term nitrogène (in 1790). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked Cook and sure enough, it does not say that Lavoisier renamed azote to nitrogen. So I removed that statement. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The O2 in photosynthesis really comes from the water. The CO2 ends up in glucose. Of course, CO2 is also required for photosynthesis, so this is a matter of how you read the sentence. --Itub (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right: I think my attention was wandering when I wrote that! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been done in some cases: eg Daintith (1994) & Cook (1968)—though for some reason Cook's co-author Lauer doesn't get a mention in the footnotes.
Comment Any reaction to my remarks on footnotes & refs above? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and wikiciteified all book, journal and conference references. That was a hell of a lot of work - this really needs to be automated and I don't think I will do that level of wikicite templating again. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work! I'm sure if I hadn't pointed out the need for it, someone else—perhaps with the initials SG, who knows?—would have done so at the last minute. I hope you agree that it looks a lot tidier & more user-friendly now. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS ISBNs are missing in 3 book references: Crabtree, Smart & Walker. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the forst 2 but not very sure about the alst one. Nergaal (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the same section we read it would take at least 5,000 years to strip out more or less all dioxygen. This is very flabby: I'd rewrite it myself if I understood what it meant!
I tried to rewrite both issues. Here is what was their meaning: 1) the O
2 is more soluble in water at 5 degrees C than at 25. 2) is photosyntheses were to stop completely, it would take 5000 years for all the oxygen to be consumed assuming organisms could keep up their respirations (which won't happen since for example humans breathe in at 21% and breath out at about 16%, so probably only 16% is deadly for us). Basically 5000=total amound of free dioxigen/annual rate of oxigen being burnt by all the biosphere.
In Anthropogenic Industrial production the text says that the price of liquid dioxygen in 2001 was approximately $0.21/kg. Do we want to include the price from a specific year already receding into the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndsg (talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is useful to give the reader a measure of the price. An exact price is not necessary, but something like 5kg per dollar sounds fine.Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the weekend is upon us I’ll be able to address your remaining concerns about dioxygen and the list of authors. It is a pity that MediaWiki does not automatically generate an alphabetical list of authors. -- mav (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could try OttoBib, which will generate a biblio from just the ISBNs. It seems, however, to put each item in its own box, so that each one has to be pasted individually—or so it seemed to me when I tried it out. Potentially it looks like a very useful tool. I'd be interested to see if you can get it to work in a useful way. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whew - Notes section is much cleaner now. I didn't get around to doing the same for the web references because they change so often and really should be switched with book/journal/conference references. But I won't object to anybody else wikiciteifying those. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added over simplified and a mention that the importance of Lavoisier's experiments were not immediately recognized. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have my Support and I wanted to bring a proof of the Lavoisier critics Article from Praktische Chemie 1870--Stone (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This confusion may have arisen because in some compounds you do need to extend the NBSPs beyond the first 2 words: eg 12 sq yd needs to be typed 12 sq yd to avoid splitting sq yd. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At standard temperature and pressure two atoms of the element bind .... I know why this expression is used, but it strikes me as a bit jargony for the Intro. Is there some shorthand way of getting the idea across?
  • ... but Priestley is usually given priority because he published his findings first. This point is discussed in the article, but seems a bit too detailed for the Intro: does the reader coming fresh to the subject really need to be informed of nitty-gritty issues of priority at this stage? Consider omitting either the whole clause or the words because he published his findings first. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More