Wikipedia:Peer review/Oxygen/archive1

Oxygen

A great deal of work has been done by several people, including me, on this article. So, what else needs to be done to bring this article to featured article quality? Note, that I plan in the very near future to summarize the compounds section and move the detail to the daughter article. Done I also plan to revamp the lead section and perform a final copyedit before I nominate it for FAC. --mav (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

External links check. Also, with the trimming down, there seems to be a lot of unused entries in the References subsection. I don't want to just start chopping them out of the article.Nergaal (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to trim those down as well as part of my copyedit. --mav (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by itub

There are some topics that I hope can be added (briefly) to make the article more comprehensive.

Y1. The history of the discovery that oxygen is diatomic and that its atomic weight is 16, not 8. Some of it is mentioned in diatomic molecule.

• added text in italics but needs wikified.Nergaal (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cites added and cleaned-up. --mav (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Y2. Dioxygen as a ligand. Besides binding to iron in heme, it also binds to organometallic compounds such as Vaska's complex.

• added Fe, Ir, and Pt. Any other good examples?Nergaal (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Y3. Non-stoichiometric oxides. Oxides are among the most prominent examples of non-stoichiometric compounds and I think deserve some mention.

• mentioned it briefly.Nergaal (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the references, I suggest looking at Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.. I highly recommend this book as a source for all the articles about the chemical elements! It contains a good deal of information on my points 2 and 3 above. On the other hand, some web sources such as wisegeek.com seem rather dubious. While not necessarily incorrect, it is not authoritative and does not inspire "reliability". Whenever possible, I think that statements should be backed up by books, journals, sometimes academic and government websites, etc. (although sometimes, in addition to the book, a commercial or amateur web source can be useful as a convenience to readers who don't have access to the books). --Itub (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Great comments - I'll try to address each point by editing the article. Thanks for the book purchase idea; in fact, that book has been on my Amazon wish list since July. I guess it is time to buy it. :) --mav (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the above fixed. --mav (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my copyedit has now fixed most of that; although, it is often clunky to spell out units many times in element articles and sometimes the proper scientific name of something is spelled in either American or British English (exm: Aluminium). --mav (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ready for FAC

OK folks - I now believe that this article is ready for FAC. So unless there is an objection, I will nominate this article for FAC on or a bit after 12 AM UTC on Tuesday. --mav (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done a few minor edits and it should look good now. Nergaal (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)