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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of a quick read, but no checking of references, etc, this article, overall, appears to be of GA-standard and I would expect to be awarding GA-status, BUT only after the WP:Lead has been brought up to standard.

I'm now working my way through the article, starting at Characteristics and then I'll come back to the non-compliant Lead. At this stage, I'll be mostly concentration on "problems". Provided these are fixed, I would expect the article to make GA-status this time round. Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Characteristics -

• This section looks OK.

...Stopping at this point. Will continue this review on 2nd September (sorry, I'm not available to review tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Compounds -

• The first unlabelled subsection is unreferenced.

• • Inorganic -

• Four out of six paragraphs are unreferenced.

• • Organoarsenic compounds -

• The final part of the paragraph about Cacodylic acid is unreferenced.

• • Alloys -

• Unreferenced.

• Occurrence and production -

• A rather poor section in respect of its composition and it is in need of a copyedit:
• The first and second paragraphs should be reconsidered, to clarify what each is about and then split the material between the two paragraphs accordingly:

• The first paragraph is mostly about minerals in the environment, but tacked onto the end is one sentence about toxicity (of arsenic) in the food chain.
• The second paragraph is equally poorly presented: The first sentence appears to be a continuation of the previous paragraph in respect of "exposure"; however, the intended meaning of "exposure" in this sentence is unclear. It could mean "uncovering or at the surface" (and it could make sense in that context), but it could also be a "measure" of toxicological burden. In contrast, the use of "exposure (by inhalation)" is obviously a "measure" of toxicological burden (it makes no real sense as a "uncovering").

• The third paragraph is a mixture of production and toxicity, but appears to make some kind of sense / consistent whole. However, the final paragraph gives other methods of production which appear to contradict and ignore the statements in the third paragraph. Perhaps these are historical methods of preparation, or methods of obtaining high-purity product, if so that should be clearly stated.

• History -

• Quite a good section.

• Applications -
  • Agricultural -

• A citation is needed in the second paragraph for the use of MSMA and DSMA to replace lead arsenate.

• • Medical use & Alloys

• These two subsections are OK.

• • Other uses -

• Orpiment was used historically, amongst other uses, as a dye - King's Yellow. Reference is made elsewhere in the article to Orpiment, but not here (it seems to fit in with Paris Green and Scheele's Green, which are discussed).
• Otherwise OK.

• • Military

• This section is somewhat US-centric, it is somewhat limited in timescale and needs some expansion.
• The USA developed lewisite in 1918, so it probably wasn't used as a chemical weapon in WW I, but many countries had stocks in WW II (and much was destroyed (see Chemistry in Britain Vol 31, No. 10, October 1995)) and many countries started to build huge stocks up after WW II (and may still have stocks). There was an article recently, last three months?, in Chemistry World, which discusses demiliatarisation of CW stocks/weapons on a world-wide basis, which might help with adding more details here.

• Biological role -

• Quite a good section.

• Environmental issues -
  • Occurrence in drinking water -

• A good subsection.

• • Wood preservation in the US -

This subsection title is US-centric and needs some expansion (i.e. remove US).

• The first paragraph is well referenced and is specific to the USA, but its OK.
• In contrast, the second paragraph which is entirely unreferenced, but it does try to add a more global perspective on replacements for CCA (but without much detail). References need to be added to this paragraph.
• I'd also suggest that a search of other sources of information be considered: there are some "hits" at (see European Agency for Safety and Health at Work ), proposed bans on the use of arsenic in wood treatment for consumer applications in Europe as of 2003, and several "hits" at World Health Organisation.
• Further information might well be found on the web in respect of Canada and Australia, for instance, which produce/use timber for construction.

• Toxicity and precautions -

• The first paragraph in the untitled subsection is somewhat limited in scope, it only refers to the USA and China, but it is referenced. I'd expect to see other limits (such as Europe).
• The second and third paragraphs are unreferenced. I'll accept the link to the EU directive in lieu of citation, but citations aught to be provided for the IARC and EU claims.

... stopping for now. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consideration of arsine.

• • Exposure risks and remediation -

• As per my comment above, ref 91 is a link to the OSHA arsenic page, so arsenic (as arsenic compounds) is covered. However, there is a separate OSHA page for arsine (and separate limits) and its not considered in this subsection.

• • Biological mechanism -

• The final (short) sentence states: Although arsenic causes toxicity, it can also play a protective role.[93], the obvious but answered question is what protective role can it play?

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to both introduce the topic and summarise the main points, and it should comply with WP:Lead.
• The main problem is that of "relative emphasis". The lead is written from a "present-day perspective" and it makes no mention of what are significant-by-size sections/subsection in the article about former uses/legacy "problems". For instance there is no mention of its CW potential (and stockpiles/disposal, etc of weapons), nothing of the legacy effects of its use as a timber/lumber preservative, nothing of the environmental impacts of its (former) extraction/processing' operations, nothing about pigments (three are mentioned in the article).
• The statement in the Lead Arsenic contamination of groundwater is a problem that affects millions of people across the world. represents a minuscule fraction of the lead, yet the article devotes a significant proportion of the body of the article to this topic

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold so that these "problems" can be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This GA review has been on hold for 3 weeks now without any progress being made. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. I'm closing this review. GA is not being awarded this time round, but the article can be resubmitted to WP:GAN - preferably after corrective actions. Pyrotec (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]