Wikipedia:Featured article review/Titanium/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Titanium

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Mav, Chemistry and Elements. Sandy (Talk) 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Has some general formatting issues, especially the long bulleted list in the middle. Almost no inline sources, there are many references listed at the bottom but only one of them is attached to a point in the article. On a side note, this became featured several years ago with only 2 votes. Vicarious 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I would recommend the translation from the French for the label of the World Producers table. Also the table's source should give publisher's data. There are also several statements with {{fact}} tags that ought to be rectified. Not as serious, but still notable in a FA, is that there is a mix of all three citation styles. It would be best that it settles on one. --RelHistBuff 10:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed table label and cite. --RelHistBuff 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I got rid of the silly list, and amalgamated it into the rest of the section. Anything else I can help with? riana_dzasta 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep - FA standards have drifted past the quality of this article since it was promoted in November 2003. I noticed this some time ago and expanded the article early in 2005. Looks like more work is needed. I'll get to that after I upload some more photos to the Commons and fix the remaining issues with the Mount St. Helens article. -- mav 04:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Let us know when to have another look - hopefully this one can avoid FARC. Sandy (Talk) 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • History shows little movement - pls keep us updated if work is progressing. Sandy (Talk) 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria are citations. Joelito (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove – insufficients inline citations, there are still many {{fact}} tags, mixed citation styles, non-standard references items and there are 2 embedded external links to commercial sites selling titanium rings and other titanium products (see the 5th paragraph of the Application section). This is based at the time of my review: [1]. — Indon (reply) — 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Per Indon.--Yannismarou 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Indon. LuciferMorgan 04:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove --RelHistBuff 07:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delay -- I'm starting to address the above concerns. --mav 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Many cites added. More later. --mav 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Krebs needs page numbers. Does Nature have an article title? Sandy (Talk) 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I no longer have the Krebs book and page numbers are not really needed; all info is from the chapter on titanium and that chapter is only a few pages long. Some of the external cite links to webpages have more combined text than that entire chapter. Anyway, I have two better references (Nature's Building Blocks and The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements) that I will be using to replace many of those cites. --mav 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, struck. Please let us know when the reviewers who voted to Remove can have another look. Sandy (Talk) 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Medical applications" subsection needs citations, while the "Isotopes" section needs citations. LuciferMorgan 05:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: I moved one link to a Wikipedia article into the See Also section. Based on [2]:
  1. Ref. #14 is a link to an image (it's not a source).
  2. Ref. #13 is not reliable because it links to a commercial titanium ring website.
  3. Ref. #12 is also link to a commercial jewelry website and it is unnecessary inline citation at the image caption. The source of the Image:Ti-color-strip.jpg is given at the image description. Furthermore, the image is inappropriate, though it is claimed uploaded by the owner of the commerical website. It looks to me of an external spam link to promote the site: ext. link in the article and also in the image description. (smell a bit fishy)
For the moment, I still stick on remove vote. — Indon (reply) — 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The are still a couple external jumps in the body of the text. Jay32183 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's because a whole chunk of new, commercial, and mostly uncited text was just added to the article. (I deleted the most commercial parts.) I'll be a Remove if this article isn't finished up by the end of the FARC period, as it doesn't appear anyone is tending the article, and there is still much too much uncited text. Sandy (Talk) 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page, from Pzzp (talk · contribs). Sandy (Talk) 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

TITANIUM ARTICLE - removing "commercial" references.

Good Day SandyGeorgia,

I am not convinced that the mention of names of companies engaged in the production of titanium sponge and melting of ingot is not useful in the article. IMHO the inclusion of the list does not constitute advertising or commercial activity, not least due to the interesting fact that the list is EXHAUSTIVE (source was cited); moreover, the club of players in this market has barely changed since the beginnings of titanium manufacture. In fact the economics of titanium metal (and several other exotics like tantalum and zirconium) are influenced by the fact that so few firms are involved in its processing and manufacture. I think that in order to have a well rounded understanding of these metals, their sources and applications, the reader is well served by being made aware of the economics of the thing. For anyone working in the metals industries (as I do), knowing who processes the materials, where they are located and how they're doing is as important as who uses them. If you're going to be religious about policy, then mention should also be deleted of Airbus, Titanium Metals Corporation, Boeing and Tiomin, all companies mentioned in other areas of the article. Note also that we're not talking consumer goods here; these kinds of companies don't advertise since they sell business-to-business only, and don't need to.

I'd like to solicit other opinions on this issue.

Manufacture and fabrication: I will add citations when I have time.

pzzp DEC 18, 2006

  • Remove. Mav indicated he'd be working on the refs, but seven days have passed, the work isn't proceeding, new unreferenced text was added, and the article is still largely uncited. Sandy (Talk) 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not so fast. :) Notice that we are having a fundraiser right now? I helped to set it up. But now I have some free time and will restart work on the article. --mav 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Fine, but would you please keep us posted? Checking the article and the FARC every day for progress is tedious; FARCs are extended when editors keep us posted and progress is apparent - that wasn't the case here, and the process isn't indefinite. Striking my Remove for now. (And can you make that fundraising bar at the top of my page disappear - I hate telemarketing, mass marketing, mail marketing and all forms of marketing solicitation - I sit down to write my year-end charity checks based on those orgs that *didn't* market to me :-)) Sandy (Talk) 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added citations in the manufactur and fabrication section, I trust they're satisfactory. The Applications section is still all over the map. Although I've added to it I think it needs a re-work to classify applications into, firstly, metal and non-metal subcategories, then further into subcategories of metal: aerospace, industrial, recreation (incl jewelry and body jewelry), emerging, etc., and further non-metal into say, pigments, coatings, etc.Pzzp 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've just removed a commercial link to a jpg which was given as a reference. This text now has external jumps (imbedded links) that need to be corrected and the text referenced:
Fewer than 10 grades are readily available commercially; most are melted upon demand. The grades covered by ASTM and other alloys are also produced to meet Aerospace and Military specifications (SAE-AMS, MIL-T), ISO standards, country-specific specifications (e.g.:JIS: Japan, DIN: Germany, BS: England), as well as per proprietary end-user specifications for aerospace, military, medical and industrial applications. Some of these alloys are patented and not available on the open market.
I'm adding cite tags to the article. We need to get this done, or de-feature the article per the vote above. Sandy (Talk) 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I spent some more time on this article tonight; more this weekend. A general reorg will likely be in order after I've exhausted my sources. --mav 03:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Spent some more time. Pretty much just needs a bit of clean-up now. None of things mentioned in the original nomination are still issues, IMO. -- mav 05:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the external jumps to websites about standards - we don't need external links to websites discussing military standards, we need a citation supporting the statements (see passage quoted above). Refs need cleanup - maybe someone will get to it before I do. Sandy (Talk) 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Considering new work, I left notes for previous voters to pls have another look. Sandy (Talk) 01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment When the objections of all other voters have been addressed, my vote will change to neutral. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I actually like it now! Keep.--Yannismarou 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's improved a lot. Great save. Jay32183 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting, reformatting & added metric comparisons. The article is greatly improved to a FA level again. No ext. jumps to some fishy ads websites. Nice work! I changed my vote to Keep, but some cleanup is still needed (I didn't finish the cleaning). I'll be back to clean the references.— Indon (reply) — 10:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be more correct to say, that the article has been brought to current FA standards. Even before this FAR, this article had significantly improved over the original FA version of 2004. So it never degraded below FA standards (those standards simply became much more stringent since the time of promotion). My vote is weak keep until I have time to do a final pass with my last ref (lead needs to be expanded a bit as well). --mav 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Mav, please keep it on your watchlist and keep a close eye on it - it really seems to get hit with the commercial links. Sandy (Talk) 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Frustrated. I'll admit to being thoroughly disgusted by the sloppiness in this article. I went to the trouble to ask reviewers who had voted Oppose to double check their votes, and having just spent a ridiculous amount of time in the article, I now found that the references were so screwed up that their re-votes are now invalidated. In fact, the commercial links were not removed - an entire patch of the text was obscured by a referencing error which took me *forever* to find. I *think* I've now fixed the referencing errors, and that caused missing text to re-appear - invalidating the Keep votes above. If the editors of this article want those Keep votes, they can get in touch with all the editors again - this article is too high-maintenance for me, and has tried my patience. If someone isn't paying closer attention to FAs, they shouldn't keep their stars - they need to be tended, and references need to be correct. Sandy (Talk) 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I also found the final reference completely hanging in the air (obscured, since the final part of the article didn't show due to an earlier ref error), so I stuck it onto the preceding paragraph - someone pls check if this is correct. <grrrr> Sorry for the vent, but every single FAC I checked yesterday had faulty, deceptive, misleading, and incorrect referencing, and WP:V is policy - people should take it seriously. Sandy (Talk) 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • REMOVE until referencing is fixed. For those who had re-voted to Keep because the commercial links were gone, they were simply obscured by an incorrect ref tag, which caused a chunk of the article to go missing, along with missing references. They're still there:
  • Exotica Jewelry (2006). Titanium Wedding Ring Catalog. Retrieved on 2006-12-10.
  • "Information on Titanium used for Body Piercing, body-piercing-jewellery.com (accessed 26 December 2006)
  • Cascadia Design Studio (2006). Anodized Titanium Ring Colors. Retrieved on 2006-12-10.

Sandy (Talk) 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, once you decide what to do with the commercial references, this image caption needs copyediting:
selected colors achievable through anodization of titanium.[28]
Sandy (Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
COMMENT - Er, almost everything you are fixing was screwed up earlier today. Why not just revert? --mav
Because (as someone who does a lot of it) I appreciate the hard work that goes into correct referencing, and I'd rather find the error than revert someone else's referencing work. Besides, what has me so frustrated is that other reviewers checked an incomplete article, with obscured text, and the commercial links still need to be addressed. Besides, the references are now fixed - the commercial links still have to be dealt with, and then reviewers asked to check yet again. Sandy (Talk) 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Commercial refs replaced and image removed. --mav
Striking my remove again, refs look better now. Since I still had to catch a minor ce problem, I'm not going to be a Keep on this article - I suspect it will be back at FAR soon, and I'm concerned about its stability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a nice prose error in the previously hidden text - we need to get a copyeditor on this: It does, however, has a tendency to bio-accumulate in tissues that contain silica. Sandy (Talk) 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll perform a copyedit on New Years Day. --mav 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. --mav 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't check until the end and found out that some unreliable sources are still used, per my first comment on top. Again, I stroke my vote and now with remove until the following ref. problems are resolved:
    1. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (1983). Titanium: Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved on 10 December 2006. → the link is dead
    2. France, Colin (2006). Extraction of Metals. Retrieved on 19 December 2006. → unauthorized website
    3. Exotica Jewelry (2006). Titanium Wedding Ring Catalog. Retrieved on 10 December 2006. → why do we promote a catalog here?
    4. Information on Titanium used for Body Piercing. Retrieved on 26 December 2006. → body piercing??
    5. Cascadia Design Studio (2006). Anodized Titanium Ring Colors. Retrieved on 10 December 2006. → commercial site
    — Indon (reply) — 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Link was live just a few weeks ago and the website looked well-maintained. Likely down for the holidays and should be back up in early to mid January.
  2. Unauthroized website? What does that mean and why is that bad?
  3. Deleted ref, image and statement.
  4. Yes, titanium is used in body piercing. Commercial ref replaced with an edu one.
  5. Commercial ref replaced with an edu one.
-- mav 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. The link is still broken, but I believe you.
  2. Please read the external link of the source here: [3] and go to the main index. Please tell me if this site is reliable as a source. The author does not attached to an academic institution, only gives paid home private tutorials. Per WP:V and WP:RS, I consider the webpage is dubious unreliable source. Isn't there any reliable academic source for the corresponding citation?
— Indon (reply) — 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Better cite added. --mav 00:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I changed my vote as a lot of work has been done compared to the original FAR version. It seems it went through a hiccup with the links to commercial sites, but with mav's corrections, it seems fine now. --RelHistBuff 05:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Looking good!Pzzp 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)