Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ammonia/archive2

Ammonia[edit]

This article's previous nomination was knocked down to a incomplete table but now everything is perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protarion (talk • contribs) 12:00, June 4, 2006

Commentjust about sourcing I think its quite well sourced and considering the abundant information on Ammonia this aspect is quite good. User: Protarion
Comment - I would love to support, but I am the person who nominated it for the Science Collaboration Of The Week, and thus helped clean up the page to close Featured Article status. Am I allowed to vote? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as you really believe it to be up to standard, than no one will question your veracity. Judgesurreal777 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, many places don't have inline sources. Other than that, though, it looks pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ for now - I'm sorry I wasn't aware of this article sooner. This is not at all to take away from the wonderful work that has been done on the article, but there are several areas which need work. First, stylistically there are several single sentence paragraphs/subheadings which are generally to be avoided. But more importantly, I would expect a featured article on ammonia to have at least some information about its crucial biologic roles in nitrogen and acid/base balance. The current article mentions them in passing under toxicity and biosynthesis, but I feel a dedicated section would be helpful. Also, some small discussion of urea cycle defects as a cause for human disease with resultant hyperammonemia would be nice. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal weekend for me to write the section - perhaps in a few days I can devote the amount of time needed. Sorry for the opposition, as you've done a great job! InvictaHOG 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my opposition after adding a short section about the biology/biochemistry of ammonia. I will support once copy-edited with removal of those one sentence paragraphs and short subheadings! InvictaHOG 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Pretty much perfect in all areas and a wealth of information. Felixboy 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. But it could be improved.
- - Some sections are short. (eg Handling and storage of ammonium compounds)
  - As InvictaHOG mentioned, it needs to have at least some information about its crucial biologic roles in nitrogen and acid/base balance.

Nice job on the article though.

Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object; sorry, we should not be using online Encarta as a major source. Find a good chemistry textbook and use that instead. Also, the TOC is rather large for an article of this length—combining level 3 sections in "Safety precautions" would be a good idea. Maybe incorporate Biosynthesis into the Synthesis and production section. Wording is also a little clumsy and informal. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 6 references two Encarta are all on points which do not really relate to chemistry and are minor points of information, so it is not really a major source. --Protarion
  - They do, however, speak about key points like the origins, history and uses of ammonia. That's important background information that can likely be found in sources more reputable than Encarta. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I came here to nominate it! H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I read it and can find no criterium that it fails to meet, and it looks very thorough. -- Rmrfstar 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. —Coat of Arms (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support Richardkselby 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose needs inline citations for figures, such as the chart under "Laboratory use of ammonia solutions". Consider moving the bolded term into the lead (presumably it redirects to this title?). There should be a paragraph or two summary under all section headings, such as "Safety precautions". Tuf-Kat 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose opposition as I'm not sure I understand what is wanted :). If by "figures" you mean the molarity values which correpond to certain percentage concentrations, the reference is the CRC Handbook listed at the Bibliography section ('twas I who added most of the Safety material). Physchim62 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - By "figures", I mean essentially all numbers. The source needs to be cited using inline citations to make it clear which numbers come from which source. Tuf-Kat 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think people are missing the point of an encyclopedia. It covers everything you could want to know, referenced, neat, yeah, go ahead. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]