Template:Did you know nominations/Water-gas shift reaction

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Harrias ^talk 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Water-gas shift reaction edit

(

)

... that the water-gas shift reaction can produce hydrogen from water?

5x expanded by Ajc540 (talk), Zwickipedia (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 10:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC).

Well this is an academic view of a subject. Thats not a criticism, but it does require a lot of work to look at. The hook should have got a lot more interest - hydrogen from water sounds like an april fuel joke. Could you please check through the article and ensure there is a ref on every para - expecially at the end of a para. Hope this help.

If any other scientists are passing then do feel free to help Victuallers (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a very interesting fact and seems quite appropriate to put it on the Wikipedia main page. I mean noone knows about this.Fremantle99 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Fremantle99 erroneously changed the "passed" parameter to "yes"; this should only be done when closing a nomination, not when approving it. If you intended to approve this nomination, the correct thing to do is add "{{subst:DYKtick}}" (or "{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}" if the hook fact reference is not available to you) to your review. If you are approving this, please make sure you've checked the items which will be listed above when you edit this nomination template, and it would help to state that you've checked them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Full review needed. "Seems quite appropriate" does not address actual DYK criteria like length, age, sourcing, close paraphrasing, neutrality, etc. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Review

Length is a problem. Pre-expansion from Sept 2013 is 2 782 characters, after expansion in Nov 2013 is 11 850 characters (and this is also the current version, as at this review). This is a 4.2595x expansion, short of the 5x requirement by 2 060 characters. This is grounds for rejection, though I do see scope for some further expansion.
Hook fact is undoubtedly true, this is well-known chemistry documented / discussed in standard texts. However, I see no direct reference attributed inline to the statement that the water-gas shift reaction produces hydrogen from water.
Copyvio check reveals no problems.
Content - I have some concerns:
- There are several good suggestions from the talk page made by student peer reviewers for this article that have not been actioned. Given the situation with student editors often leaving once marking is complete, I am concerned that these will never be addressed by the editors who did the expansion.
- The equation in the lede should be made into the format standard in the Chemistry WikiProject, and it should be changed to an equilibrium reaction.
- Ideas like Fischer-Tropsch, Monsanto, and Cativa processes are introduced without description.
- The significance of the process would be clearer if the Haber process were given greater context. We are talking about the manufacture of a feedstock chemical for a process described as the most significant discovery of the 20th century and responsible for sustaining one-third of the world's population. Does that come across from the article? It doesn't to me and I know it is true!
- Smokefoot noted that the metal carbonyl catalysis work mentioned in the lede led to no new technology, so there is an UNDUE issue. The mechanism and other parts of the article don't really cover the metal carbonyl approach (though it was in the pre-expansion version), which should be addressed.
- The entire mechanism section has a single reference at the start, a 2010 dissertation. I do not believe that no secondary source has addressed the mechanism of this process.
- The temperature dependence section has a figure that appears to be a plot of a model rather than empirical data. The article uses as a model
  $\log K_{\mathrm {eq} }=-2.4198+0.0003855T+{\frac {2180.6}{T}}$
  whereas the pre-expansion version used
  $\log _{10}K_{\mathrm {equil} }={\frac {2408.1}{T}}+1.5350\times \log _{10}T-7.452\times 10^{-5}(T)-6.7753$
  I am unsure why the change but the equations are not equivalent. I'm also not wild about the log scale on the y-axis not being indicated more clearly (such as with gridlines that are non-uniformly spaced... maybe it would be better to plot log K v. T - the appearance would be the same but the scale would be +5 to −1 rather than 100 000 to 0.1.
- The mechanism diagram is good but it is unclear to a reader unfamiliar with chemistry as to which parts are dissociative and which are redox.
- The hydrogen economy is important enough to be included at the start of a paragraph in the lede (an unreferenced paragraph, in fact) but is only included as a passing mention in the article. The lede should be a summary. In fact, the basic process is described only in the lede and should be in the body too.
To be fair, this is a substantially improved article and much worse material has appeared on the main page, but the article could also be made considerably stronger with comparative ease.
As a nomination for another editor, no QPQ is required though it is desirable. Graeme Bartlett has plenty of DYK experience so it is a little disappointing that no QPQ is provided.

At the moment, hook reference, expansion length, and references for mechanism section all need addressing for this to proceed, at a minimum. EdChem (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that anything can be done about expansion length. My computer was broken down at the time I nominated this so I did not have access to any of the tools to check lengths accurately. My review activity is very bursty, so most of my reviews have been done a long time ago. At the movement I only have 4 self nominated QPQs as I only nominate a fraction of my writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Article will not be expanded to 5x, so it cannot be approved, plus other issues remain. With luck, this will someday be a Good Article, and can be nominated at that point regardless of length. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)