Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valence electron/archive1

Valence electron[edit]

I feel that this article should act as Wikipedia's Featured Article due to its comprehensive format and various information. In my opinion, this article is the epitome of excellence, and should be recognized. I do acknowledge that it is a rather small article, but it has more to offer than large, unorganized articles.

EinsteinMC2 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Lacks ~~a lead section and~~ references as required by the Features Article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 02:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffling of the article text has created a lead, but has also reduced the article to the point were the table of contents is not automatically displayed. This has shifted my objection from lack of a lead to a lack of a substantial table of contents (requirement 3c). --Allen3 ^talk 02:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object strongly. See Allen3's comment. Could have been lifted from the Web for all we know. --AnOddName 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article had not been proofread carefully, and a mistake was visible. I would love to support this in the future, once it is expanded further. Don't give up though! Brisvegas 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object not comprehensive as required by criteria. Large organized articles are possible too. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object Many basic faulty judgements like "To determine the quantity of valence electrons an element has, you must look at the family (vertical column) in which the element is categorized." Uurghh! And how did Mendeleev to choose where to place the atoms in the table? The number of valence electron is the number of electrons which can be ripped off the atom without using too much energy. Look at ionization. This article should be merged with electron shell, electron configuration, atomic orbital, molecular orbital and other wellknown stubs on WP. This topic needs many expert editing and a big collaboration between physicists and chemists. Vb 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Refer to peer review. No references, not comprehensive, not enough context, requires previous knowledge of the subject. Almost everything in the lead is questionable: electrons cannot be "located" in an energy level; post-Heisenberg, an encyclopedia should not be giving the impression that atomic electrons are little billiard balls; it is strange to talk about an "outermost" energy level; some words have unusual meanings when used in a chemical context, such as "reactive", "unreactive", "shell" - all are unlikely to make much sense to a non-chemist without explanation; "shell" and "energy level" are not simply interchangeable. Nowhere is the word "valence" defined or linked. The experimental history of the subject is surely fascinating, and would make an ideal start for setting the context, but is not mentioned. Possibly this article should be merged with the little Valence bond theory stub. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]