Hydrogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Hydrogen
• Featured article candidates/Hydrogen/archive1

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

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:

• in history: describe early bonding theories by Lewis and others
• is H2-Pd discussed?
• probably something about pH
• probably something about H3O+ ... H9O4+ etc--Smokefoot (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Also:

  • Hydrogen spectra, its role in history (eg Balmer), its role in astrophysics (eg Lyman).
  • H2 bonding QM,

  Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "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]

• "Purple glow in its plasma state": Purple glow doesn't have a plasma state. It should read, "Purple glow of hydrogen in its plasma state". Praemonitus (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I've been neglecting this due to various distractions and a case of the January Blues. This week I will work on sections related to the commercial production and use of hydrogen (energy, storage, safety, etc.). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:19, 8 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]

• The uncited content on the Hindenberg disaster sounds as if it's absolving H2 altogether and H2 was unfairly demonized. I'm pretty sure there's consensus among scholars that H2 played a major role. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why the limitations of hydrogen as an energy carrier are in the "Storage" section. This section also strangely begins with three sentences that are not about storing hydrogen, but are about storing electrical energy in the form of hydrogen. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is considerable overciting which makes it difficult to check whether sources actually support statements. E.g. there is the claim that methane pyrolysis "has a lower carbon footprint than commercial hydrogen production processes.[120][121][122][123]". I suspect this is true when comparing methane pyrolysis to 95% of commmercial hydrogen production, but not true when comparing methane pyrolysis to green hydrogen. But I don't have time to check four different sources on this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I reworked that section. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better, thanks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the sourcing is very old. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Safety section comes across as dismissive. It is also outdated - H2 is being proposed for a variety of uses, including in peoples' homes, for which there are new risks compared to industrial settings where H2 is handled by trained professionals. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]