Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Technetium

Technetium

Self nom; been on peer review for a while. Kinda short, but there really isn't much to say about this element in the first place and everything significant to say is already included, IMO. So I think the length is very appropriate. I'm responsible for the original de-stubbing of this article, and recently significantly expanded it. Since then, others have expanded my expansion and fixed many issues (such as some unclear writing on my part and some outdated data from one of my sources). This is therefore one of the more collaborative articles I've submitted to FAC. --mav 02:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. The article sure doesn't seem inadequate. Femto 15:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. Jan van Male 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Object. Several sections of the article (notably "notable characteristics" and portions of "occurence") are gramatically one sentence paragraphs that have been strung together into meaningless paragraphs. The text should be reorganized within these sections, and ideally subsectioned. In general, the writing is competent but not "" or "brilliant" - the FA criteria for meeting the "well-written" requirement. The "applications" section is overly bulleted. The "isotopes" section is probably better titled "isotopes and isomers". As I recall, there was lots of excitement and controversy over the apparent absence of element 43 before technetium's discovery; I'd like to see more discussion of that. I would also like to see how ammonia pertechnate and potassium pertechnate is a useful anticorrosive in steel on a chemical/physical level, and in what specific applications it is used as such (for example, it's hard to imagine a useful application where submersion of mild carbon steel in a dilute KTcO4 solution is the best anticorrosion solution to an engineering problem). Without too much detail, it'd be good to cover why it is chemically similar to Manganese and Rhenium. Also, it occurs to me that because of Technetium's half-life and method of production, it's conceivably possible to estimate how much Technetium there is in the world, on the order of magnitude of (probably) tens or hundreds of thousands of kilograms (and if it's possible, I imagine somebody's tried it!). That kind of factoid - "the entire world supply of Technetium can fit in your living room" - is always fun to include if available. - Bryan is fat prick 17:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

1. The 'notable characteristics', 'applications' and 'occurrence' sections of all element articles will have some difficulty as you describe. This is due to the nature of the type of information covered there; many different things are touched on, and each of those those things often only merit a single sentence. This is particularly true for the applications section. Thus the standard Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format for that section is to have a single paragraph that covers the most important uses and then have an 'other uses' list. Typically, each bullet point will have a sentence or two about one use. This is to specifically avoid having paragraphs made of sentences that have little to due with each other (organizing by property used may be tempting, but too many uses depend on more than one property). The names of the different sections are also set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. The FA criteria specifically say that FAs should follow WikiProject guidelines. So the lists and the section titles stay and those parts of your objection are not actionable since they directly contradict an explicit FA criteria.

I've looked over the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements and the associated talk pages and do not see the "standard format" you refer to on those pages; however, you are clearly much more familiar with them so if you could point me to the spot you're referring to I'd be appreciative. Nonetheless, I reject the concept that we should ignore the guidelines for "well written" because of specifications of a project -- a project's specifications may be appropriate to a class of articles, but not for Featured Articles. I might mention that the "notable characteristics" section has improved since this morning; it is now almost resolved into sectionable paragraphs - something like "reactivity" and "electromagnetic characteristics".

Beryllium was used as test case to set the general format. The applications section from the start was a list, and the whole format was accepted. Also, things like RC Comment Thread #6 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 1 talked in general about when to use lists. Then by converting and expanding 70 element articles, I started to add the major uses paragraph. Other people who filled out the other element articles did very similar things. At one point lithium became the reference article, then the FA titanium, now the standard-bearer is the newly re-FAd helium. So this is a defacto standard and absent a specific FA criteria (such as having a lead section or references), those standards go. Either way, I still insist that the two small lists used are perfectly fine even without the WikiProject standard. The headings are in the template table on the project page. --mav

In my opinion, there is no reason that lists should be used in the way they currently are in the technetium article. (Frankly, they shouldn't be used in helium either -- a little creativity and cogent articles could be created discussing helium's uses categorized by the properties of helium they are exploiting -- but I digress.) The first list in technetium applications is entirely composed of various ways it can be used as a radioactive tracer in medical tests. That could easily be rewritten into a nice paragraph or two, which I believe is preferable. A couple items from the second list in the section should probably be moved up. The other two items don't make much of a list, and should just be written out in a couple sentences. Regardless of comparable articles within the project, even those that have been FA'd, I will continue to hold that this article does not meet the "well written" criterion in its current form, and therefore I will continue to object on those grounds. Obviously "well written" is subjective, so I acknowledge that others may disagree with me, but I feel my position is valid and defensible. - Bryan is Bantman 18:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The listed points have been expanded to the point where they can stand alone as their own paragraphs. Note that this will not normally be practical for most elements. --mav

1. If you want to change WikiProject Elements guidelines, then try to convince other members of that WikiProject to do so (almost all element articles are formated per those guidelines, so you are going to have a hill to climb). Besides, a great many writing guides I've seen suggest using lists here and there to improve readability (reason: it helps to break up text and focus the reader's attention). It would be different if that section were just one big list - it is not. In fact it has far more prose in paragraphs than almost all other elements. Even without the WikiProject guidelines, I'd say this article uses lists appropriately.

I'm not foolish enough to pick a fight that big. I just don't believe that project conformity is enough to overrule other FA requirements, and I don't believe that this article meets the "well written" requirement, as discussed above. I do think that it is possible to get to "well written" within the guidelines of the Elements project, although it complicates matters. (Notwithstanding that as mentioned above I couldn't find the guidelines you are referring to.)

See above. Lists improve readability and this section is not just one big list or set of lists. Prose and the appropriate use of lists are employed. --mav

1. The manganese vs rhenium (elements are lowercased, btw) bit is already covered in the peer review. In short, the statement sounds more interesting than it is and endlessly saying each property is intermediate between those other two elements would be trying on the reader (and boring). Saying it once is enough. But I'll take a close look at the properties of all three elements and see if there is anything interesting to report. I don't expect there will, however.

I'm not suggesting a run-through of various properties or compounds; I'm suggesting that if the article makes that statement, it should be backed up with a sentence or two on the general rule of element's similarity in behavior with adjacent elements in the periodic table, and a note that technetium follows that rule in most respects.

OK - I'll do that. --mav

Done "Its position in the periodic table is between rhenium and manganese and as predicted by periodic law its properties are intermediate between those two elements." --mav

1. Your statement about the 'notable characteristics' section being made of artificial paragraphs is valid but subsectioning either is not appropriate, IMO, due to a lack of text to work with (an expanded history section may need to be subsectioned, but so far no section looks long enough for that). It looks like Jan van Male has done a good job reorganizing/rewriting both sections to deal with the 'artificial paragraph' part of your objection. The paragraphs seem to have themes now, and are thus valid.

As I said, improved but not yet great. You suggest there is not enough text to work with -- I agree. Adding a sentence on why a few characteristics listed are indeed notable, is an easy way to bulk up the section with useful information.

Another copyedit is in order. I can do that. --mav

Done. --mav

1. Things like Tc-97m and Tc-99 are both isotopes, and are treated as such in every element reference I've seen, so I don't see your point there. The meta states are just special kinds of isotopes.

It appears I misunderstood; stet.

1. More information on the search for element 43 would be interesting. So I'll look for that and write about it as well.

That would be super.

Done. --mav

1. A not-too-technical explanation of why certain forms of Tc compounds are anticorrosive and how they are used would be interesting. I'll look for that info and add it if/when I find it, but I consider that above and beyond FA criteria (have you seen the Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia articles on this element? Each of the three is only marginally better than this article's lead section).

There is a problem with this info and it was removed. Only one primary source mentions it. --mav

Strike that. Aarchiba just readded the info along with the known possible reason why the effect works. --mav

Comparing WP's article to Britannica's, Encarata's, and Columbia's as a means to gain points on FAC is specious. WP's article must stand on its own, meet FA requirements, and truly be the peer of other FA articles, to pass an FAC vote. Some topics can never be FA quality because there is just not much to write about them; I don't believe that is the case here ~~but if it is, so be it~~ .

A comparison to other similar reference works is perfectly valid. An FA criteria is that an FA should 'Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.' Encarta, Britannica, and Columbia are all valid things to compare to in this regard. Are you aware of any treatment of this subject on the Internet that is better than the Wikipedia version presented here? --mav

"The best on the internet" is not nearly enough for FA-ship. (I wrote Wars of Castro, think it's a nice little article and probably the best info on the internet, but would never dream of nominating it as an FA because it just doesn't meet the standards we have established for FAs.) A proper discussion of what has been made into a significant statement of fact in the article is absolutely necessary. Arguing that the information is not available in a few encyclopedias, and therefore should be considred "above and beyond", does not make that information unnecessary or uninteresting. Again, "represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet" is only one of several guidelines. While it may already be met (I am not aware of any better articles, although I haven't really looked), that does not exempt the article from meeting all other requirements. - Bryan is Bantman 18:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Best in the world then. I've yet to see any single print source better than this article either. Those 'few encyclopedias' also include a specilized encyclopedia on the elements. --mav

Regarding the anticorrosive explanation, I don't think it needs to be technical; for example, chromium works as an anticorrosive by forming a thin, hard, transparent layer of chromium oxide when exposed to air... no need to get more technical than that. Given the somewhat bizarre description of use as an anticorrosive already described in the article, I'm sure that somewhere someone has written about actual applications of the technique.

See above. --mav

1. Estimating how much technetium there is in the world would be original research unless a reference can be found for it. I'll look for such a reference.
- --mav 00:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree re: original research. While that comment was more of a sidenote, I should use this opportunity to mention that the article lacks any "hook" that makes it a particularly interesting read. There is no reason that it shouldn't have one; certainly its whole history as the "missing element" is more than enough material to write a compelling story. ~~It just doesn't have one yet.~~

Thanks for your attention to my comments; I look forward to voting for the article when my concerns are addressed. - Bryan is Bantman 01:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Having a 'hook' is not an FA requirement. If all the significant details are there and the topic is still not interesting for you, then that is not an actionable objection. But the total amount ever produced is now in the article. --mav

Bryan, thanks for your constructive criticism! It appears we have been concentrating more on the facts than the prose. I'm not withdrawing my support, instead I am confident that your concerns can be addressed. Regarding the total amount of Tc produced: I found a reference and added the info to the article. Jan van Male 09:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support All element articles should be as concise as this, well done --PopUpPirate 00:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Support Extensive detail about one of the most interesting elements that people don't know enough about. There's no meaningless digression here; it's fact-packed. However, I strongly suggest that the History section be moved to the top, right below the intro, because this is the most interesting section to laymen (the "hook" mentioned above). It might also be helpful to provide more summarization and context, where applicable ("main idea" sentences and summary paragraphs). My only other comment (about all the element articles) is that I'd like to see a colour diagram of the spectral lines. Deco 03:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The order of the sections has been preset by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Besides, moving the history section would not leave room for the photos there (one of my favorite parts of the article). The history item and the subsects of that item in the TOC along with the photos and their captions in that section will attract the eye of the layman very well, me thinks. Sentence structure could be improved - I'll see about how best to deal with that. But I'm not sure what you mean by 'summary paragraphs.' We do have a concept of summary sections whereby a section summarized a subtopic that is dealt with in more detail in a 'main article' on that subtopic (see wikipedia:Summary style). The only other summary like that is the lead section (the 'intro'), which could be expanded a bit since it is supposed to act as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. And yes, spectral line diagrams are badly needed. Know of any libre/gratis source? --mav 03:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to strike out my comments that have been addressed. I think that the article is still in need of a minor copyedit, which I intend to do when I have a few moments, but by and large my concerns have all been addressed. Therefore I will withdraw my objection and offer my support. - Bryan is Bantman 19:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Note that it has expanded drastically since it was nominated. I think it now answers the questions people are likely to wonder about: what's it good for? where does it come from? why aren't there any stable isotopes? how was it discovered? --Andrew 15:44, May 4, 2005 (UTC)