Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lead(II) nitrate/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC) [1].

Lead(II) nitrate[edit]

Notified: Wimvandorst, WikiProject Chemicals

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was recently shortened by someone qualified to do so, but hasn't been reviewed since the major changes. I am particularly concerned by the shortness of the lead, whether the shortened article is now comprehensive, and the prose structure of short, stubby paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The call for review is appropriate: the vandalism to the article is very much. The primary problem pointed out (too short lede) is already addressed, since re-instating the original 2008 is still fully correct now. But other parts of the article have been butchered as well, with an overall undue shortness. I'll give it a copy-edit to re-instate the original text, incorporating the genuine additions/improvements by a few hundred editors in the last 11 years. Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I'm just starting this review, but one of the questions I had was what language "plumb dulcis" is? I presume it's Latin, but the Classical Latin for "sweet lead" is "plumbum dulce". I know that seems somewhat minor, but it's what I picked up on. I'll see what else I can review at my earliest convenience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor vandalism reverts were easy. However, the major change is by dr Gans, of UoLeeds who is certainly knowledgeable enough about the topic. I asked on his talk page to comment on his major wikipedia changes, and am awaiting elucidation. We can always boldly revert to the version of early September 2019, but I rather co-operate on improvement. Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Although dr Gans is qualified as a inorganic chemist, the editing he does is merely deleting what he deems to be not pertaining to the primary content of the Lead(II) nitrate article. It means that information, targeted to non-scientifically trained readers, is deleted by him. My view is that this article should also cater to readers without a PhD in chemistry, and thus have more general information about aquaeous chemistry of the salt (which is special), and references to its historic use as pigments. How do other editors see this? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
In my opinion, this article is now less accessible to a non-expert. The edits, while in good faith, have left the article in a state where it no longer serves Wikipedia's audience and is more appropriate for a college chemistry student. I don't know if the answer is to restore the September 2019 and inspect the proposed changes individually, but that would be a start. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support Laser brain suggestion of reverting to the August or early September version. 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC).
@DrKay and John M Wolfson: Do you also concur with LB's suggestion? If so, if that were implemented, what additional work would be needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support reversion to the September 2019 version; on first order it at least looks better with its longer structure and infobox images. Going off it there are still several statements that are uncited, which gives me pause. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wimvandorst, DrKay, Petergans, John M Wolfson, and Laser brain: Per this discussion I've restored the September 2019 version; please discuss what changes are required from that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wholesale reversion is unacceptable, as it re-introduces material which actually does need to be deleted. I limit my comments here to the infobox: the picture of a white powder is unverifiable; The structure of the nitrate ion is misleading as the ion has 3-fold symmetry (what is shown is one canonical form of a resonance hybrid of 3 structures); the correct structure (at the right here) is shown in the picture in the section Structure so the other structures in the infobox are also redundant. My only other comment at this time is that the table of solubility belongs on a data page rather than being in a main article.

My wholesale edit was based on the principle that content has to be verifiable and non-trivial. I suggest reversion to my last edit and a discussion of possible amendments/reversions to that version on the article talk page. Petergans (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Petergans (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see some edits I can make to the references and some other formatting; nothing major, but can I be pinged when a version to edit is decided on? Kees08 (Talk) 21:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and formatting. Some sentences require citations. Main problem is stalemate on preferred version. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, as the article has once again been gutted and made less accessible. Large portions of cited text have been removed with vague edit summaries like "clean-up" and I don't know enough about the topic to examine the edits. I'm disappointed at the lack of discourse between SMEs here and ultimately the reader is the loser. --Laser brain (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Not comprehensive: for example a brief search can bring up details that are entirely missing from the article, such as alternate name lead dinitrate, melting point of 470°C, and a clear depiction of the chemical structure. DrKay (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's not a very good FAR outcome. Unfortunate Delist, article is gutted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.