Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Atomic theory

I have done a lot of work on this article, trying to give an elegant story on how the modern concept of atoms evolved, starting with the ancient Greeks and finishing with quantum physicists. Kurzon 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Object - insufficient references. Pagrashtak 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Object - as above. Add a wider variety of references - there must be many on the subject or similar. CloudNine 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Object - great concise article but it needs to be referenced much more. --mdmanser 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a number of references. How is it now? Does it need more?Kurzon 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Very short. How about GA? Wiki-newbie 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Hurricane Irene (2005)? WP:FA doesn't have a length requirement. This article is already rated A-class on the physics assessment scale, a GA would be a step downBorisblue 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. Never Mystic (tc) 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support now that references have been provided. But suggest withdrawing nomination and putting it for peer review first. Borisblue 06:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Still needs more references, especially in the historical section. Also, there is very little detail about the quantum mechanical model of the atom; as the currently accepted model, this should be described in depth, or perhaps even be the focus of the article. --Zvika 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• The modern model of the atom is already better described on the pages for atom and electron configuration. This article focuses on the historical development of atomic theory.Kurzon 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree for the following reasons:

1. How is a reader supposed to know that the history of atomic theory is found in Atomic theory, while the currently accepted atomic theory is found in Atom? (The electron configuration article only describes some aspects of the modern theory.)
2. The section we are talking about is titled "Modern atomic theory", yet contains only one sentence about the current theory -- the very last sentence in the article.

Perhaps Section 2.4 should be renamed "Early quantum models" or some such, and the last paragraph in it could be expanded to a new Section 2.5, called "Current atomic theory", starting with {{main|Atom}}, and having about 3-4 paragraphs summarizing Section 3 of Atom. --Zvika 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment only: "The atomic theory" refers to the idea that the universe is made of atoms, and we go to Epicurus and others for it. To some degree, Spinoza's theory of monads was a form of atomic theory, as well. This has virtually nothing to do with the actual physical atom and is, instead, the philosophical position of realism. The model of the universe we embrace now is not the atomic theory, as it's not really theoretical now. Atomism is a very important line of thought in the history of philosophy, and I agree that any article on the theory should not be concerned with physics, quite. A headnote disambiguation ought to take care of things, and a proper lead. Geogre 11:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old FAC, restarted here now for the third time. Needs to be removed. Sandy (Talk) 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)