Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hydrochloric acid/archive2

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [1].

Hydrochloric acid

Notified: Wimvandorst, Apaugasma, Cacycle, Smokefoot, WikiProject Chemicals, talk page notice 2022-09-28

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review as it has loads of uncited text, vast amounts of missing information available online/print, underdeveloped lede, and short sections, which were all mentioned by Wretchskull in the talk page, but weren't addressed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this article in its current state fails FA criteria on many accounts. In 2021 I rewrote the history section, which before my arrival contained downright fringe claims (as many other history sections of chemical substances did at the time). That section is reliably sourced now, but somewhat unfocused and meandering in its exposition (it should also be moved down).

I am mentioning this because I will not be working on this article and will not be watching this FAR, but if someone would like to save the article from a delist and would like my help with the history section, they can ping me and I will try my best to improve the prose (do note though that I'm not a native speaker). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently fails the following FA criterias:

1a: The history section and the entire article needs some copyediting, as I am seeing some grammar mistakes. I also see some inconsistencies with the dialect of English its written in, the talk page states that it is written in American English, however, I see some British english words such as vapour.

1b: There are loads of new material and information available online/print, which isn't in the article yet. This has already been mentioned by Wretchskull.

1c: There are loads of uncited texts sporadically throughout the article.

2a: The lead section is way to short for the current article, and needs to be expanded. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC due to the comments above and no significant edits to address these concerns in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per Z and User:Keresluna; still no edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include source, structure, prose and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above; issues identified remain unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 16:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: no significant edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: no progress being done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.