Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic theory/archive2

Atomic theory[edit]

You may be looking for another atomic theory FAC, see Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurzon (talk • contribs) 19:27, October 15, 2006 (UTC) See [1]

Very short. How about GA? Wiki-newbie 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Hurricane Irene (2005)? WP:FA doesn't have a length requirement. This article is already rated A-class on the physics assessment scale, a GA would be a step downBorisblue 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Never Mystic (t c) 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that references have been provided. But suggest withdrawing nomination and putting it for peer review first. Borisblue 06:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still needs more references, especially in the historical section. Also, there is very little detail about the quantum mechanical model of the atom; as the currently accepted model, this should be described in depth, or perhaps even be the focus of the article. --Zvika 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The modern model of the atom is already better described on the pages for atom and electron configuration. This article focuses on the historical development of atomic theory.Kurzon 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for the following reasons:

How is a reader supposed to know that the history of atomic theory is found in Atomic theory, while the currently accepted atomic theory is found in Atom? (The electron configuration article only describes some aspects of the modern theory.)
The section we are talking about is titled "Modern atomic theory", yet contains only one sentence about the current theory -- the very last sentence in the article.

Perhaps Section 2.4 should be renamed "Early quantum models" or some such, and the last paragraph in it could be expanded to a new Section 2.5, called "Current atomic theory", starting with {{main|Atom}}, and having about 3-4 paragraphs summarizing Section 3 of Atom. --Zvika 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POST-CLOSING NOTE: See Talk:Atomic theory/FAC archive sort, this is a dummy FAC created from a file that was overwritten multiple times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]