Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Atomic theory/1

Atomic theory[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept per discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, there's uncited material. I'm not sure exactly how much since i'm not good with sciencey general references that the article has but I do know that

Avogadro's law allowed him to deduce the diatomic nature of numerous gases by studying the volumes at which they reacted. For instance: since two liters of hydrogen will react with just one liter of oxygen to produce two liters of water vapor (at constant pressure and temperature), it meant a single oxygen molecule splits in two in order to form two particles of water. Thus, Avogadro was able to offer more accurate estimates of the atomic mass of oxygen and various other elements, and made a clear distinction between molecules and atoms.
It was proof that atomic theory was not merely a convenient tool for predicting how the elements react, but reflected the actual nature of matter.
This model was validated experimentally in 1908 by French physicist Jean Perrin, thus providing additional validation for particle theory (and by extension atomic theory).
Bohr's model was not perfect. It could only predict the spectral lines of hydrogen; it couldn't predict those of multielectron atoms. Worse still, as spectrographic technology improved, additional spectral lines in hydrogen were observed which Bohr's model couldn't explain. In 1916, Arnold Sommerfeld added elliptical orbits to the Bohr model to explain the extra emission lines, but this made the model very difficult to use, and it still couldn't explain more complex atoms.
For his discovery of the neutron, Chadwick received the Nobel Prize in 1935.

And many more. Also, i'm using the GAR script for the first time so their may be something wrong that happened with this nom. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (this is an option under the new guidelines, so this !vote will likely be valid within the 7 days): Onegreatjoke: it is not clear from your statement how the article does not meet the WP:GACR. None of the above statements are "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines also do not mandate inline citations (even though it is recommended). Femke (alt) (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to mention but the things i've listed were uncited material and not anything you mentioned. Even though there's likely general references, these were uncited statements I found at the end of sections which I feel go against the general references criteria. Besides, these are uncited to begin with which I feel are still a problem. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they were uncited? For some of these statements, I do expect them to be in any book about atomic theory. The inline cites before those examples are to the seminal papers, so I wouldn't be surprised if the entire sentence is based on a secondary source. You may be able to figure this out better using mw:Who Wrote That?. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is all standard stuff, written up in many physics and chemistry textbooks at the college level. Some of it has filtered, in simplified form, down to high school. The only challenge in sourcing such statements is to pick the best reference(s) from among the many options. XOR'easter (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a first pass (don't really have time for more than that). It could benefit from another pair of eyes, but I don't think there are serious issues yet remaining. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot XOR'easter! Important article to get right :). You found and fixed some more serious issues it seemed.

@Onegreatjoke: are you satisfied? There are still some paragraphs that seem to rely on the general references, but the fraction is certainly reduced. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, these are things that are uncited at the end of sections. For example the sentence "Avogadro's law allowed him to deduce the diatomic nature of numerous gases by studying the volumes at which they reacted. For instance: since two liters of hydrogen will react with just one liter of oxygen to produce two liters of water vapor (at constant pressure and temperature), it meant a single oxygen molecule splits in two in order to form two particles of water. Thus, Avogadro was able to offer more accurate estimates of the atomic mass of oxygen and various other elements, and made a clear distinction between molecules and atoms." At the end of the Avogadro section is fully uncited. Sure, it could be cited to citation 20 but the citation is placed before, not after the sentence and nothing indicates that there's a general citation for that sentence in the next section. As much as general references are fine, there should be something that at least cites the entirety of the Avogadro section instead of halfway in it because that's just bad citation formatting to me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you that the citation style is/was suboptimal, and I'm very happy with the improvements made. WP:scientific citation guidelines do allow for us to cite the first sentence to cover an entire paragraph, as long as this is done consistently in the entire article. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.