Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hydrogen/archive2

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

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 0:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC) [1].

Hydrogen

[edit]
Notified: Clayoquot, Smokefoot, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Elements, WikiProject Climate change, talk page notification 2023-11-01

Review section

[edit]

I stumbled upon this after doing some research for my niece's homework. However, I believe the article is not in good shape after all. The article was last reviewed in 2008 and there is considerable uncited text. The "Phases" section is only a list, including Niche and evolving sections. There is also overquoting, the citations at lead asap should be removed or moved to the body of the article, and other complaints from several users at the talk page that are left unaddressed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per house style: the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
I see only one long quote, the passage from Robert Boyle in § Discovery and use. Whether that is excessive is a matter of taste. I agree that § Phases should be more than a bare list; I took a stab at starting that. XOR'easter (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quote as undue. The material surrounding it had good references but they did not say what the article said. I repurposed them. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the FAR should not pass as long as the infobox content does not match the article content. Please see Talk:Hydrogen#Discovery_in_article_vs_template. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the energy carrier section should be severely pruned and the details moved to another article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1, why should it be severely pruned? When I do a Google or Google News or Google Scholar search for "Hydrogen" nearly everything in the first few pages is either a general overview, focused on producing H2, or focused on using H2 for energy. There is a lot of interest in this aspect of the topic. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot No objection to production or use as energy, just as energy carrier as niche I think. But it seems your question is moot as someone else has already removed that subheading Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created and revised a section on chemistry. Some needs:


  • "Hydrogen is highly soluble in many rare earth and transition metals[40]". I'm not sure that solubility is the correct term or maybe we should expain that H2 is split (I think) and these metals make hydrides.
  • safety section is sorta contrived. If the stuff is liquified, one can get burns. Anything that cold will burn the crap out of you! Also the fire thing is a little redundant.
  • compressibility is an issue but is not mentioned. It is very unfortunate that compressing H2 costs a lot of energy.
  • diffusivity of H2 gas is another big deal. If I were a better man, I would understand the diffusion constants. But H2 gas moves quickly at RT, another reason that it is very difficult to have an H2 fire (see Graf Zeppling story).

Some other really big changes

  • Storage is emphasized
  • BioH2 is largely combined
  • "Energy carrier" section was redone and is now "Energy source". The carrier concept is now in storage.

--Smokefoot (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Energy carrier" versus "energy source" seems a bit pedantic. Something can be the source of energy in a particular application without being the way in which human society originally obtains energy. Among the million-plus GScholar hits for "hydrogen" and "energy source" are, no doubt, plenty that call hydrogen an energy source. Surely the important thing is to explain what goes into making hydrogen industrially, rather than to get hung up on the terminology. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I changed "energy carrier" to "fuel" which is clearer. Further explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen#Carrier_business Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a few things and found a few more things that I won't have the energy to fix in the near future. Will list the issues below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're quite there yet.

  • " neutral hydrogen atoms only formed about 370,000 years later during the recombination epoch as the universe expanded and plasma had cooled enough for electrons to remain bound to protons" is what the reader is informed during the lead but then later there's "Nearly all deuterium in the universe is thought to have been produced at the time of the Big Bang, and has endured since then." And while I'm not very great with chemistry at all (my rural high school chemistry class involved more of lighting things on fire in the lab than it should have) isn't deuterium a netural atom? So was this produced at the Big Bang or 370,000 years later?
    • Deuterium atom does indeed mean the neutral deuterium atom. However, I think the intended meaning here was that deuterium nuclei is thought to have been produced at the time of the Big Bang and neutral hydrogen atoms only formed about 370,000 years later. Keres🌕Luna edits! 14:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has molecular hydrogen bolded as a synonym of hydrogen here, so I guess we're distinguishing this article from atomic hydrogen somehow? Our article at atomic hydrogen attributes the 75% figure to atomic hydrogen, not dihydrogen/hydrogen gas. Is that accurate?
    • The lede is indeed quite confusing. The current lede interchangeably talks about molecular hydrogen (H2) and hydrogen element itself (H). Here is the breakdown:
Hydrogen is a chemical element; it has symbol H and atomic number 1. It is the lightest element (atomic hydrogen)
at standard conditions, is a gas of diatomic molecules with the formula H2, sometimes called dihydrogen, hydrogen gas, molecular hydrogen, or simply hydrogen. It is colorless, odorless, non-toxic, and highly combustible. (molecular hydrogen)
Constituting about 75% of all normal matter, hydrogen is the most abundant chemical element in the universe. (atomic hydrogen)
I attempted to clarify the lede. Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the lead seems to be focused on hydrogen as H2 gas, rather than the H1 atom, but the article body covers both of these things throughout? I think the lead needs refactoring
    • When the article focuses on the H1 atom, it is mostly talking about the nucleus, while when it talks about the H2 gas (the most common form in which it exists), it talks about its properties. Both the nucleus and the properties of an element are discussed in the lede. Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hydrogen gas was first produced artificially in the early 16th century by the reaction of acids with metals" - but the human history in the article body starts with Boyle in the late 17th century?
    • This is probably due to a disputed observation of hydrogen by Paracelsus.[1] Fixed.
  1. ^ John T. Hancock; Tyler W. LeBaron (2023). "The Early History of Hydrogen and Other Gases in Respiration and Biological Systems: Revisiting Beddoes, Cavallo, and Davy". Oxygen. 3 (1): 102–119. doi:10.3390/oxygen3010008.

Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This lead really needs work. Hog Farm talk 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intro section should mimic the TOC of the article. The TOC of the article should call out which parts are atomic and which are molecular. (IMO these are not the same topic and we should probably have split the article.) Johnjbarton (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is tempting, I am at a strong oppose of spliting the article. The article hydrogen should discuss all parts of the atom and its forms. Keres🌕Luna edits! 00:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before this FAR can really start progressing to a point where featured status can be kept, there really needs to be a clear definition of the scope of this article, and the scope of the lead needs to be consistent and coherent with the scope of the article as a whole. Hog Farm talk 20:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the other Element articles like Oxygen and Nitrogen group the form at STP with the element. I rewrote the intro to match the current TOC. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we possibly try to remove all citations from the lead and just simply source it at the body of the article? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What's the rationale? According to MOS:CITELEAD its not needed. Keres🌕Luna edits! 00:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are agreeing. Or I hope because I moved or removed all of the citations in the intro. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the article look so much better. This is not a preference, but other high-quality FAs does this. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All cn tags have been taken care of. What are the remaining problems? Keres🌕Luna edits! 17:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hydrogen is commonly used in power stations as a coolant in generators due to a number of favorable properties that are a direct result of its light diatomic molecules. " - needs better sourcing for "commonly used"; the two sources in this paragraph are from 1946 and 1931
  • "This was justified by the high thermal conductivity and very low viscosity of hydrogen gas, thus lower drag than air." - possible OR? "This was justified" referring to a 1937 event, but using a 1931 source?
  • ""Methane and hydrogen formation from rocks – Energy sources for life". Retrieved 6 November 2011." - incomplete reference formatting
  • What makes airships.net a high-quality RS?
  • "Hydrogen is mainly produced by steam methane reforming (SMR), the reaction of water and methane" - three references, do we need the 1934 patent, which isn't going to contain usefulness about hydrogen production in the current era
  • " "Hydrogen industry must clean itself up before expanding into new…". Canary Media. 31 August 2021. Retrieved 5 April 2023." - is this a high-quality RS? Is this related to The Canary (website) somehow (a source that WP:RSP does not speak kindly of)

@Keresluna, Johnjbarton, and Boneless Pizza!: - this is looking much better, the above notwithstanding. Before entering a declaration of keeping for the FAR, I would like to see the above addressed and hopefully we can get a chemistry-focused editor to read through the article thoroughly and indicate they are satisfied with it. Hog Farm talk 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are done. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you got to it before I could! Nice work. Also, does anyone know why the infobox is so wide?
Here are some thoughts about the Application section:
  • I feel like we do need more mentions of some industrial processes/concepts involving hydrogen, such as the historical Bergius process, and syngas (Fischer–Tropsch process)
  • Ammonia production should be elaborated on.
  • Are the Semiconductor and Coolant sections significant enough to warrant their own separate sections?
some other thoughts:
Other than these the article looks pretty good. Keres🌕Luna edits! 05:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this person is a chemistry focused editor, but he is doing a great job of periodic table article! Tagging you @Double sharp just in case you may be interested :D. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section "Hydrogen-containing compounds" is off base. The most notable aspect of hydrogen chemistry is hydrocarbons and the section should highlight the pervasive role of hydrocarbon chemistry. On the other hand, the current content, the discussing defn of "organic chemistry", is not notable for an article on the element hydrogen. However I only never owned an organic chemistry book, just copies of chapters the prof handed out for us to proofread. I'm hoping someone has a book handy. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: Any updates? Keres🌕Luna edits! 21:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one came forward, so based on your prompt I went ahead and replaced the section with a summary from the intro of Hydrogen compounds. Please review. If you agree and no one complains, we're done. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is almost ready to go. The only thing standing out to me is the scope of the Application section. I really do not think the Coolant section deserves its section and I think that the Petrochemical industry and Hydrogenation sections need to be slightly expanded, given that they are the two biggest applications of hydrogen gas.[1] Keres🌕Luna edits! 04:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: I have tweaked the sections and added the Laboratory syntheses section back with a little tweaking and a better ref. If you have no objections, I think the article is ready to keep. Keres🌕Luna edits! 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnjbarton (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice job at that article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Could we get a closure? Keres🌕Luna edits! 02:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that one of the FAR coordinators @FAR coordinators: would be happy to opine on that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current lead can be misread because of a poor structure. It says hydrogen is found in organic compounds as the gas dihydrogen, which means that the gas dihydrogen is found in organic compounds. I think the lead can be improved by moving the sentence about dihydrogen into the first paragraph to avoid introducing it before explaining what it is. The original lead introduced the gas before talking about plasma states in stars or compounds. DrKay (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna: Can you take a look at this? @Hog Farm: have your concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged the structure of the lede and clarified to reduce confusion. Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - Yes, I'm at a keep here as well. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Peter Häussinger; Reiner Lohmüller; Allan M. Watson (2011). "Hydrogen, 6. Uses". Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley. doi:10.1002/14356007.o13_o07. ISBN 9783527306732.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hydrogen/archive2&oldid=1292329835"