Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noble gas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 July 2008 [1].

Noble gas[edit]

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Nergaal, Itub, WikiProject Elements


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it has finally reached FA level. I haven't submitted an FAC in a month and a bit, so bear with me ;) Editors who have done MAJOR work to this article include Nergaal and Itub, among many others who helped do some copyediting, finding references, and making sure things look nice and tidy. This article is definitely the most technical I have worked on, by far, but I think we have done a great job with this. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as co-nominator. I was hoping to finish filling in a couple of small gaps in the section on occurrence and production before the FAC, but I'll let the reviewers decide whether those gaps are an impediment to promotion or not. These gaps should be filled within a few days, which is well within the usual duration of the FAC process. In the meantime, any comments about the FA-worthiness of the existing content and presentation are of course welcome. Other than that, in my biased opinion, the article is accurate, comprehensive enough, and meets the other FA criteria as far as far as I can tell. The only aspect I can't comment on is the "prose brilliancy" requirement, which is too subjective for me to judge. --Itub (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaps added? Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't noticed your question. I filled most of the gaps that I had in mind, but there are a couple left. 1) I'd like to expand a bit the part that describes the method of production. The Ullmann and Kirk-Othmer encyclopedias have very detailed descriptions of the industrial processes, with diagrams and everything. While we don't need such gory details, a couple more sentences would be good IMO. 2) Production figures. The problem here is that the values I've found are either for the USA only, or are too old, or are for helium only. I still haven't decided which ones to use. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) the most recent figures are perhaps the most useful; separate references may be used for each entry; try SciFinder if you have access to it. Nergaal (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • {{citation}} is only used in the References section, and that is the case because the article uses {{harvnb}} which only works with {{citation}}. I believe recently promoted FAs also do this. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that you're using citation that is the problem. It's that you're using citation ALONG WITH cite. One or the other, not both. If you want to stick with harvnb, you'll need to remove the cite templates and switch them over. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cap my comments for me. Sandy asked me a while back to only cap long commentary. This isn't that long that a strike through won't work. Also, I'll note that somewhere someone left off an end font tag, because you've changed the font on the whole of the FAC page with something missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - font issue fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the applications section has little on Xenon as an anaesthetic, which phenomenon itself is considered as a major puzzle by some (like Sir Roger Penrose). Shyamal (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - seems comprehensive, well organised, written, cited and illustrated. My only observations below: Shyamal (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • somewhat confusing usage of "discovering" a "synthetic" element (and seems to imply serendipity) in A synthetic member of the group, ununoctium (Uuo), has also been discovered
  • The abundance of the noble gases in the universe decreases as their atomic numbers increase. I think this should be reworded to explicitly indicate that it is an observed trend rather than something that can be "controlled" - that atomic numbers could be altered.

Quick Comment - Please close and archive the peer review for this article. Giants2008 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left a few comments at the peer review (sorry, a bit late) - have they been addressed? giggy (:O) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, we closed it before you commented there. However, I will still take a look at your comments. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a few unresolved issues at the PR (taking at random the point about Bobrow; second bullet point... plenty more though). You're welcome to reply to the comments on that page or to copy-paste them here and reply. —Giggy 02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have gotten to all the points. Gary King (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Giggy 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While the column of elements in the lead looks great, it's not very informative when you consider the lack of a legend to explain the meaning of the colours and border styles used. Can some explanation of these be added? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a fancy legend. I hope that helps! Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox is a bit fussy – is the primordial etc bit standard?
  • Intro –shouldn’t non-metallic be hyphenated?
  • but very little is known of its properties due to its rarity. Rarity seems odd for a synthetic- isn’t it more the difficulty of making and working with it?
  • consequently, they are liquids only over a small temperature range. The noble gases show extremely low chemical reactivity; consequently,
  • isolated a new element, argon, from the Greek word for inactive (αργό(ν)). I thought it was isolated from air, not a word –second para of history needs a good copyedit really
  • radon fluoride but krypton difluoride.inconsistent
  • Xenon is the least volatile of the noble gases obtainable from the air, and although it is an unusually safe anesthetic, its compounds are toxic there’s no obvious connection between an element’s properties and those of its compounds – witness NaCl
  • temps sometimes in K, C and F, sometimes just C and F – inconsistent. Since this is a proper science article, I’d stick to K only (three temp units looks a mess)

Nice article, just needs polishing – check my tweaks and revert if you don’t like jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Primordial" has been expanded.
    The table is standard in similar articles.
    Nonmetallic is from the word nonmetal.
    The element is still discovered rather than synthesized itself, just in a lab instead of in "the wild".
    Consequently has been changed
    Good point. Done.
    Radon Fluoride is RnF and Radon Difluoride is RnF2, so they are different
    I might be wrong, but the reason why they simply call it fluoride is because they don't really know the stoechiometric formula. They just know something with Rn and F has formed. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed
    All in Kelvins now, with C and F conversions which are necessary for most people
Gary King (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Suggestion: why not move radon difluoride to radon fluoride, and remove the formula? jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and commend

Well done, a beautiful, engaging, well-written, comprehensive article. I haven't enjoyed reading a science article so much in a long time, (but I still don't know what exactly helium replaces in breathing gases; perhaps it's just simply used:).
Dhould be more clear now.
  • Would ''instability be better than unstable nature?
  • This sentence is a bit odd, Argon is the most plentiful noble gas on Earth, while krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds. There seems to be a false contrast here.
I can't wait to see this article on the main page. GrahamColmTalk 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both issues have been resolved. Thanks for both of your supports! Also, I'd like to see this article on the main page; it'd be a nice change from biographical, sports, and video game articles :) Hopefully it will educate a few aspiring chemists, too! Gary King (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - prose generally looks fine, a few things though:

  • The first sentence states that being a noble gas is equivalent to being in group 18, but later it says "...but preliminary experiments have shown that it may have similar chemical and physical characteristics to other noble gases, and may therefore be a noble gas without being a member of group 18." Clarification would be appreciated.
  • "Lord Rayleigh discovered that some samples of nitrogen from the air were of a different density than nitrogen that resulted from chemical reactions"
Nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence actually states "The noble gases are the nonmetallic, inert elements in group 18", so the "nonmetallic" and "inert" characteristics are required. Gary King (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it can still be misinterpreted as "The noble gases are the elements in group 18, which are inert and nonmetallic", though it's meant to say "The noble gases are those elements in group 18 which are both inert and nonmetallic"? Can we come up with a phrasing that's not ambiguous (and not as awkward as my unambiguous example)? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the noble gases are elements in group 18 that are both inert and nonmetallic"? —Giggy 04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fitting in a mention that the group is on the periodic table in there would be difficult, though. Gary King (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In the last paragraph of the history section, mentions of two superheavy elements are made. It is unclear in this paragraph what the relevances of these discoveries are to noble gases. For example, while Uuq is given as having potentially noble-gas-like properties, it is not commented on that this is not necessarily predicted by its atomic number (it's "eka-lead", not "eka-radon"); nor is it said why the synthesis of Uuo (which is predicted to be a noble gas by its atomic number) is a discovery. It would be helpful to an uninformed reader to understand why these discoveries are significant to the topic at hand. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I now notice that some of this is described in the lead; nevertheless, can we please have more detail in the relevant section? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well written article indeed. Some minor comments:

  • "The abundances of the noble gases in the universe decrease as their atomic numbers increase." This seems a little clunky to me although I am not sure how it could be improved.
  • "and it is also used as an anesthetic ..." Is the "it" here superfluous? I changed a few like this, then I realised on a technical article this could change meaning. Sorry if there has been any errors made.
  • "This localization of charge is accommodated by the fact that the fluorine atoms are highly electronegative." I am not a big fan of the use of "by the fact". Would "This localization of charge occurs because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative" or if that implies a causation where none exists, then "This localization of charge is allowed because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative".
Minor points all and support is given regardless. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the Support! Gary King (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Seems good overall. I just have a few comments:

  • "They have several important applications..." does this mean just Helium and Radon (as in the prior sentence), or all of the noble gases?
  • "The melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together" should include a value to avoid vagueness. For example, "within a range of 10 °C or less."
  • The statement, "leading them to rarely react with other elements," seems odd somehow. Perhaps it is too anthropormorphic? Something like, "Hence they rarely react with other elements" would be more direct.
  • Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done, and done. Pro or against FA? Nergaal (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward support. But I'd like to see after Ruslik's comments are resolved. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose. The article makes lots inaccurate statements, is not comprehensive and and is not well-written. Some examples (from the end of the article):

Resolved comments from Ruslik (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Krypton is used in lasers by doctors performing eye surgery", While this is formaly true, it fails to mention that NG are used in excimer lasers—one of the most succeseful type of lasers. The ArF and KrF lasers are widely used in optical (or UV) lithography. The majority of modern electronic chips is made with them. This is much more important application of excimer laser than "eye surgery". This type of lasers is widely used in fusion experiment (see for example Nike laser). Neon is also used in helium-neon laser and helium is used as a buffer gas in many gaseous lasers. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but do you have a [citation needed] for ArF laser? Nergaal (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Type "ArF laser lithography' in google. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about this field. I could try to cherry pick from the articles you gave, but I am not sure weather that would be enough. Do you know someone who knows enough about the field to add the information there? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the paragraph about excimer lasers. I'm not an expert, but I tried to summarize the salient points from the introduction and the table of contents of the book I cited. --Itub (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) Another paragraph begins with: "In the early 20th century, hydrogen was used ...". However the article is about NG, not about hydrogen. Why not to begin with "Helium is used for ..."? This paragraphs is not well-written in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) The paragraph about diving is not well-written as well. It begins with "Helium has a low solubility in fluids, ...". Why not to begin with "Helium is used in breathing mixtures ..."? In other words you should state at the begining where helium is used, then explain why it is used, not in reverse order like in the article. In addition this paragraphs is misleading in respect to influence of solubility. It creates an impression that the helium is no better than nitrogen. This is not true, and helium is used instead of nitrogen, partly because of its low solubility (in addition to low narcotic effect). As a result the decompression is accelerated and divers can ascend faster than with nitrogen in their blood. The article, in my opinion, should not go into irrelevant details like "Divers breathing helium mixtures use a modified form of dive tables or software to determine a schedule that allows them to ascend safely". Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better now. Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) From 1)-3) above it is clear that 'Applications' section should be expanded and needs thorough copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the section a bit, adding more uses in lighting, metallurgy, medicine, cryogenics, and in scientific instruments. The big use that still needs significant expansion is lasers; I don't know that much about lasers so if someone who knows can write that it would be nice. --Itub (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion I think is done. As for copy-edit, anyone? Nergaal (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited it myself. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) What is "ppm by mass" and "ppm by volume"? I have always thought that ppm refers to "particles per million". I don't see any connection with either volume or mass. The values that are listed in the article are (probably) mass fractions and should be listed as 0.23 etc. In addition, I can not find such values in the ref cited (Anders et al. 1989). Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I recommend you: a) to use a newer publication (Lodders et al. 2003, for example); b) to cite the values from it accuratly (i.e. ppm is ppm, mass fraction is mass fraction). Also pay attention that such articles usually give two types of abudances: in the Sun's photosphere (around 0.24) and primordial (around 0.27). If you write about abudances in the universe the latter values should be used.
You have been misled about the meaning of ppm. It means parts per million, and is very often used in terms of mass and in terms of volume, just like "percent" can be used as "percent by mass" or "percent by volume". 1 ppm=0.0001%=0.000001, that's all there is to it. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right here. However in literature that I usually read "ppm by mass" is rarely used. Mass fractions or ppm (by number of particles) are much more common. My main concern is about the validity of values themself. Please, use newer refs and cite them accuratly. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that abudance of Radon is given as 0.00. While correct can this be written better? Why not to say that radon does not (usually) naturally occur?
I've added a table of abundances using the values from the reference Lodders (it turned out that the old values were not from Anders but during the heavy editing someone changed the reference without updating the numbers!). I've also renamed "ppm by volume" to "volume fraction (ppm)" in case that's more agreeable. It needs to be emphasized that it is by volume (or by number of molecules if you wish, assuming that the atmosphere is an ideal gas) because, at least in chemistry, ppm often implies "ppm by mass". --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6) The second paragraph in 'Occurrence and production' should be moved into the next section. And the sections should be renamed accordinly. It also states that "Helium is typically produced from oil wells". So it implies that it is produced exclusively from oil wells and nothing is produced from gas wells? Strange statement indeed. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be moved there? Occurence and obtaining do not mix together? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Methods of production are more closely related to Applications than to natural occurance. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both xenon and helium have those section combined together. And if an element occurs in air, and you only need to distill it, it seems logic to put the distilling part right after saying you can find it in air. Also, a compound/element is produced, and besides being used industrially, it may be used scientifically. Therefore you could also defend the argument that production should be between occurence and chemistry sections. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't insist. Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7) The same section states "The low abundance of helium on Earth is caused by the total loss of primordial helium from the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom", but I suspect that helium was never abudant in the Earth's atmosphere in the first place. Another sentences reads "The abundance of argon, on the other hand, is increased as a result of the beta decay of potassium-40, also found in the Earth's crust". However argon has several stable isotopes, and only one of them is actually increased. This sentence is misleading. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it misleading? It seems obvious to me that by increasing the abundance of one isotope, you also increase the overall abundance of the element (of course, you also change its isotopic distribution and average atomic mass in the process). Perhaps we could mention that argon-40 is more than 99% of natural argon. --Itub (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can mislead because a casual read will think that all argon is from decay of potassium. 36 and 38 isotopes are more like other noble gases— they are primodial. This is actually the main reason why their abudances are similar to those of other NG. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded that part a bit to mention that the argon formed is argon-40, and that it is the most abundant isotope on Earth despite not being the most abundant in the solar system. I hope that helps. --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the statement imply that helium was abundant? I think it only implies that we would have had more now if it wasn't for the low mass of the atom. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated that sentence today. The way it was before, it suggested that there used to be primordial helium on Earth, that has since been lost. I rephrased it to "There is no primordial helium in the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom, helium cannot be retained by the Earth's gravitational field". --Itub (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8) In 'Compounds' subsection I read "As of 2007, almost 100 compounds of xenon bonded to other elements have been identified". However the ref cited (Grochala, 2007) says about half a thousand (see page 1632). One hundred value refers only to Ng-C, Ng-N and NG-Cl type compounds (see page 1634). The ref 7 deserves more attention in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9) The HArF is not the only known Ar compound according the same ref 7. Other compounds include ArAgCl, ArCuCl etc.(pages 1638 and 1642). Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot open the ref right now, but are you sure that those are 'true' chemical compounds? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not less true than HArF. They were observed in jets, while HArF at extremely low temperature. At least this is my reading of ref 7. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10) Kr also has more known compounds inluding Kr-Cl, Kr-Au, Kr-H, Kr-C bonds. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the same ref, I am not sure that it said those compounds are anything more than interstitial compounds. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not more interstitial than HArF, which is refered in this article to as real and relatively stable compound. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as much as I remember, the paper seemed to imply (in an image around the conclusion section) that HArF is more of a true compound than those with Kr...Cl weak-bond-like compounds. Again, I don't have the paper now to double check. Nergaal (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11) In addition unstable (short-lived) moleculars (excimers) of NG should be mentiond as well. They are basis of some widely used lasers. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned briefly. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12) This article is supposed to be scientific, therefore °F should not be used. It is preferrable to use Kelvins for the temperatures in the table. The ionisation energies would be more informative if they were expressed in electronvolts. The abudances (I already discussed them above) should also be moved to the table. While some values (like viscosity and mean free path) can be removed becauses they are not very informative. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
eV vs kJ/mol is just a matter of preference. I included the values in the units that were used in the reference, Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.. Although eV might be preferred by physicists, in my opinion kJ/mol is better for this article because it is the SI unit and is better-known. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that viscosity and mean free path can be removed, because they are not discussed in the text, and are just two of many properties that could be included. Regarding the abundances, they used to be in the table but were removed because someone insisted that abundance is not a "physical property"! As far as I'm concerned, I prefer to have them in the table. --Itub (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can make a separate table. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where did you see °F; °C might be more accessible for regular users than K; also, the table does not use SI strictly, therefore I don't really see the need to use K. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no °F in the table, but it is used in a couple of places in the text for parenthetical conversion. --Itub (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate those fake units that some ignorant parts of the world need to use. Anyways, I have deleted the F part since it does not add anything. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I converted temperatures to Kelvins in the table. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13) In 'Physical properties' I read " krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds.". However this contradicts 'Compounds section'—Ar was forced into a number of compounds. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list of issues a bove should not be considered complete as I don't have anough time to review all used references, and the article needs copy-edit by a person not familiar with text. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not all that good at copyediting, and might cause some problems. I'll call up AndonicO instead. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Andonic is too busy. :( I might do some more later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to recap brefly: add about lasers&lithography, more about Ar&Kr compounds (pending on discussion on the reference [31]), copyedit applications. Correct me if I missed something that still needs to be done. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Matrix isolation important enough to be mentioned? I think it is a very neat scientific application, and is used decently often. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think it is important enough to mention. Perhaps we could have a paragraph in the applications section focusing on "scientific applications" that are interesting and useful to scientist but not necessarily "practical" or "commercial". I would also include there the use of noble gas compounds as oxidizing agents that is currently in the compounds section. --Itub (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention--perhaps it is a bit curious that some noble gas compounds can only be studied under matrix isolation conditions! --Itub (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true for any highly unstable compound, and most NG compounds are not that stable. Nergaal (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence, but I do not have a reference. I know for sure that cyclobutadiene was first characterized as a monomer in an argon? matrix, but this might be overly detailed for the purpose of the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference. I don't think we need to add specific examples. --Itub (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot open the document for several weeks. Anybody else willing to take a closer look at ref ~[31]? Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done now? Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the article now. Ruslik (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attention needed; see my edit summaries, mainly WP:NBSP, wikilinking, there are side-by-side images scrolling off of my screen in the "Compounds" and "Applications" sections, incorrect use of quotes vs. italics, incorrect punctuation on image captions per WP:MOS#Images, and inconsistency in page numbering in citations (some use p. others don't). I suggest first fixing the items noted in my edit summaries, and then approaching someone like User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check. I'm always surprised when a nomination gets seven supports with no one apparently having checked on these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten them all. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also attempted to link the more technical terms for people to click on when they don't understand something. I hope that helps. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Noble_gas&oldid=1138467981"