Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acetic acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Acetic acid

team nomination: The Acetic acid article is a team-developement of the Chemicals WikiProject, including efforts of some ten active scientists as well as school teacher level. After internal team peer review, it has also been up for PR for a good month, enhancing it even further. And now the team has reached consensus to propose it for FAC.

• Support. Wim van Dorst 20:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC).
• Support. Much improved since Peer Review. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: just for full disclosure, I'm a member of WP:Chem but only made a couple of minor edits to the article itself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - a very fine article. H Padleckas 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Marvelous! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 00:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• SupportVery well done article, great citing Magicmonster 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, the saftely section should probably also mention flamability of both the liquid and vapor and associated storage and handling proceedures (I know we always use glacial acetic acid in the fume hood in my lab)--nixie 02:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have modified the safety section as requested, however the use of acetic acid in a fume hood is not due to its flammability but rather its pungent vapour. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 09:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support.It is an outstanding article. Carioca 03:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support ~K 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support (NB: I was a member of the group editing this article) Walkerma 06:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support (I have also edited this article as part of WP:Chem) Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 09:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - (I'm not one of the Chem crowd, btw): well done, everyone; but shouldn't you have started at formic acid? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - although it would be nice to see some of the comments below (e.g. overlinking) addressed. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I am a physicist and a layman in chemistry. My comments are therefore only on the style and the pedagogical aspects, not on the comprehensiveness nor on the correctness of the article. I object for the following reasons but don't hesitate to argue if you don't agree (some comments are only suggestions):
  • Some technical words should be explained in the text without having to click on the link like it is very well done for instance for polyethylene terephthalate (e.g. for soft drink bottles). E.g. hygroscopic (in the lead), monoprotic acid.
  • (see image) could be changed into (see Fig. X) which is more encyclopedic.
    • Removed superfluous '(see image)' text. Wim van Dorst 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Sometimes overlinked. I think the titles Chemical reactions and Use as solvent should not be linked but the first appearance on the words in the text. Fat blue is strange.
  • The subtitle More reactions involving acetic acid are discussed below. is strange.
  • Providing a picture or a formula for defining acetyl group could help the reader. Maybe expanding a bit the section Biochemistry with some pictures or reaction schema would also help
  • The title "Oxidative fermentation;" followed by the subtitle "Main article: Vinegar" is a bit strange for the layman. Vinegar doesn't seem to be an article about this reaction. Vb 11:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Assessing all the above points, I estimate that all have now been taken care off, as pointed out below as well. Wim van Dorst 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

• I still think the section biochemistry could be improved by a picture. Why not the schema of a biomolecule with the acetyl group highlighted. Vb 09:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent overall, but oppose for the reasons given above, and with a special emphasis on the overlinking - for example, the six-line section Solvent links twice to water and twice to solvent; vinegar is linked at least five times in the article as a whole; carbocation is linked twice in eight words. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC) OK, happy to support now. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at addressing some of these objections - personally, I think it makes sense to link to vinegar in the lead, the history section, and a section entitled "Vinegar", since vinegar essentially is acetic acid, but multiple links in one paragraph are not required. YMMV. Doesn't someone have a bot that finds duplicate links? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll try to sort out some of these, but I should mention that IMHO there is not much room for expansion of the biochemistry section if this is restriced to acetic acid itself: I have already tried! The acetyl group has a wide biochemistry, but I do not feel that this article is the place to discuss it. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 12:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I personally think a picture with a relevant biomolecule with an highlighted acetic acetyl group would be enough. Vb 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1. As Vb says, certain terms are not introduced to the user. A line on E number is necessary. The lead should also be clear and text like "(e.g. for photographic film)" should be delinked from parenthesis. 2. a) MoS for units not followed: a. Please use a non-breaking space between a number and unit: eg: 1.5 Mt/a; similarly 1.22&cP, 16.7&°C etc. b) Please use − for anions instead of the hyphen. 3) Text in some places are not encyclopedic: a) ...extremely disgusting odour... b) ...virtually all forms of life... c) ...by many as misleading... d) ...corrosive and has to be handled... --> should be handled e) ...an outstanding industrial chemical... 4) ==Safety paragraph== needs a copyedit. 5) Please mention the degination/what it is: Showa Denko, Monsanto, eg: industrialist Showa...; biotechnological company... etc. 6) Single sentence paragraphs needs to be merged with text. 7) Please remove unnecessary bolding of text. 8) Single paragraph sections needs to be expanded if possible. 9) =Other applications= needs to be converted to prose. 10) See alsos should come at the end of a section. 11) There seems to be an EU tilt to the article. Are the EU standards followed worldwide? 12)® ? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

for (11) there is often an EU slant to chemical safety sections, as the standards are easier to find and are more rigourously defined than those in other jurisdications; I will try to find some balancing standards for other English-speaking countries: (12) see trademark. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 10:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit cryptic on 12. I meant that (R) should not be used in the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Taking on (2), (6), (7), (10) and (12), I can tell you that all running texts have NBSPs between number and units. And there was one '-' now replaced by 'minus'. The offending ® has been removed. The number of bolds is now limited to the actual names of the compound. The see also has been incorporated in the text, and the chembox reference table. There seem to be two single-sentence paragraphs, but that is because the chemical formulas are made to stand out on a separate line, and the text continuous. Effectively there are no single-sentence paragraphs. Mostly, these points have all been taken care of in the peer review phase. Wim van Dorst 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC).
• Also handled (1), (3), (5), and (7) again. I estimate the remarks of (4), (8), (9), and (11) differently, viz. texts are good as they are. Wim van Dorst 20:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

I've copyedited some of the text and removed unnecessary subheadings. The only thing remaining is the =Other applications= section which needs to be converted to prose, and bold text removed from =references=. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of NBSP in tables is imho overdone, but thanks for adding them. I copy-edited the Other applications to show more prose, retaining bulleted lists where useful. PC took care of all overdue boldness in the References. And I took the liberty of re-introducing subheadings in only the Production and the Applications sections. Removing ALL subheadings was a bit too much, I think. Wim van Dorst 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC).

The remaining boldface in the references is in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Journal_articles and American Chemical Society style. I have added a US Permissible exposure limit to go with the NFPA diamond and the linked NIOSH page: I can't find anything Canadian or Australian for the time being. Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no problem with the subheadings, though I feel something more on vinegar won't hurt. The only thing remaining is having a better caption to the image: "Detail". =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• support --Adam1213 Talk+ 09:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• support --RobertG ♬ talk 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - wonderful. Proto t c 12:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly Biased Support Acetic'^Acid 18:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Per 13 November 2005, the Acetic acid article is Featured Article. All people who have contributed to this achievement by giving their support or proposing further improvements here, the sincere thanks of the Chemicals wikiproject team. Wim van Dorst 15:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC).