Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hydrogen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hydrogen

Is currently a GA, was last nominated for FA in September 2005 (see archive). Much improved since, and ever topical with the presumed advent of the hydrogen economy. Looking forward to your suggestions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support: until that "citation needed" tag is replaced with a citation. It's a pretty clear scientific article but should definetely be checked over by other experts in the field. For some reason though I feel some information might be missing from the article. The only thing that caught me is the 1 or 2 sentences where water is mentioned. Can you add why/how oxygen and hydrogen merge together to become water? Also were there any discoveries by the space programs where an abundant amount of hydrogen was found on a planet? if there was might be a good thing to mention but I'm just throwing out ideas here. - Tutmosis 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up two out of three, and corrected a misstatement (since there is no such thing as pure orthohydrogen, any physical property measurements compare the para to the normal form). I'm not sure the remaining unsourced statement (on the solubility of hydrogen vs oxygen) really needs to stay, since the next sentence is about metal adsorption. Regarding your first question, molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen don't just "merge" to make water, although hydrogen can undergo combustion in the presence of oxygen to form water and heat. Opabinia regalis 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'm ashamed to say I have no idea how two elements become a compound. I hope I got that right, Anyway thanks for replying. - Tutmosis 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's just that "merge" is so much gentler a word that what actually happens. This reaction is used in rocket fuel :) Opabinia regalis 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support: Pending citation to the solubility of hydrogen in water. Otherwise a generally great article -- Nbound 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Solubility claim has been replaced with new, sourced information more relevant to the matter of hydrogen storage and metal adsorption. Opabinia regalis 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Adsorption" is the correct term, properly spelt and all? Non-science major that I am, I thought at first glance it was a mangling of "absorption". The very thought of such a crucial term being mispelt in a FA was...unpleasant. --Fsotrain09 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, adsorption is the right term in this context. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Per above fix i fully back this article as an FA (vote changed) -- Nbound
  • CommentOppose: For general tidyness, I'd like to see a reference for the synthesis of the 4H - 7H isotopes. The "Role in history of quantum theory" section may need a bit of 'dumbing down' without losing content. Further elaboration of the catalysed orto-para interconversion may be useful (i.e. why is it done? and please cite a source there too). The cause of the Hindenburg explosion in the Combustion section should also cite its source (and thanks for avoiding the rocket fuel meme there!); the last paragraph in that section (rxns with halides) seems a tad out of place and should probably be relocated. The "compounds" section would benefit from general citations to a standard organic chem textbook. My greatest complaint, however, is the Applications section, which should be greatly expanded and provide actual examples of use (preferably in industrial processes). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I neglected to post after I did this, but the isotopes, compounds, and Hindenburg sections now have more thorough references. Also, Samsara has rewritten the applications section. Opabinia regalis 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Overall, it is quite good. I would prefer that the Applications section be converted to prose from a list, but I don't feel terribly strongly on that. Maybe one or two more photos would jazz up the article too - maybe the Sun or a Hydrogen bomb or a plant where H2 is produced or something.--DaveOinSF 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: great article, covers every detail of the subject (and there are many!).igordebraga ≠ 22:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Generally good article, but the bulleted list in Applications lets it down, particularly the repetition of "H2 is used..." If this is converted to prose I'll have no qualms about supporting. Oldelpaso 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good article. Rama's arrow 00:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment — Overall it's a good article. I just saw three items that I think need to be addressed:
    • The word "emmissivity" should be changed to "emissivity".
    • These sentences have some redundancy: "Thus hydrogen is both ubiquitous in the universe and difficult to produce in concentrated form on Earth. Although H atoms and H2 molecules are abundant in interstellar space, they are difficult to generate, concentrate, and purify on Earth."
    • More importantly there appears to be no mention of 21-cm line radiation, which is very important in radio astronomy.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed the first two points. I don't know anything about the third, so feel free to add something about it! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like the last is already covered adequately by the 21 centimeter radiation and Hydrogen line articles. I added a link to the "See also" section, so that should cover it. — RJH (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)