Talk:Van der Waals equation/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Airman72 (talk · contribs) 16:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The previous GA nomination was failed per "too many unreferenced paragraphs". I agree that this issue still has not been adequately addressed. Thus, it fails WP:QF #5. I note that the previous reviewer, User:Phlsph7, has provided more in-depth and valuable advice on the new nomination. Please pay attention to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

When the article was reviewed previously, it contained a section that had citation needed notes as well as a paucity of references. I have replaced that section with one that I have written. I have made an effort to document all statements with referenced sources. The page has 155 notes to 43 referenced Books/Journal articles written by well respected authors. Could you please tell me where exactly are the "too many unreferenced paragraphs". Thanks, Airman72 (talk) Airman72 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The first one: the second-to-last paragraph of the lead. Lead paragraphs can often be unsourced, but only when they summarize sourced material expanded later in the article. There appears to be no such expansion for the definition of the saturation curve. (Incidentally, the start of the last paragraph "Although it is hard to imagine today" is written in a discursive unencyclopedic style, and if kept would also need a citation for the difficulty of imagining this today.) There are six unsourced paragraphs in "Behavior of the equation", not even counting the one with only the inline textual reference to Boltzmann's book. The inline references [9] and [10] do not both point to Boltzmann's book; they maybe should be updated to [10] and [12]. Many other sentences in this section are past the final footnote of their paragraph. In "Relationship to the ideal gas law", the sentence "This is not surprising..." appears to be unsourced. In "Utility of the equation", the last paragraph is unsourced. In "History", the first part of the second paragraph, briefly summarizing the biography of van der Waals, appears to be unsourced. (The footnotes at the end of the paragraph are vdW's own publications, not about vdW.) The second-last paragraph on the Nobel Prize and the end of the last paragraph appear to be unsourced. Several points in "Critical point and corresponding states" appear unsourced. The first paragraph of "Thermodynamic properties" and the second paragraph of "Internal energy and specific heat at constant volume" appear unsourced. And this is still only a small fraction of the way through a huge article, problematic from the point of view of WP:GACR #3b "without going into unnecessary detail", another issue already discussed in GA1. I stopped here, not because I think those are the only problems, but because it should be your own responsibility to find and fix all of the problematic aspects of the article, not to demand others put effort into feeding you a list of things to fix and then only doing exactly what they say. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)