Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chemical warfare/archive1

Chemical warfare

Self nomination: I've been putting a huge amount of work into this subject, and I think it's just about ready for its first pass through the FAC process. Even if it doesn't pass, the crucible of the review process should help to mold my beloved article into something even better. -- ClockworkSoul 02:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've made a large number of the requested changes and improvements that were suggested; I will hopefully finish tomorrow, including that graph issue that was brought up. Sorry for the delay, the holidays have been holding me up. I look forward to any comments that the objectors may have. :) – ClockworkSoul 19:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. - Extensive, researched, referenced, edited. - Trick 02:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Minor quibbles: The Brussels Declaration (1874) is listed after the Hague Convention (1900) -- should they be chronological? The table for "Chemical weapon proliferation" is no longer "To the right...". The John Doughty story appears twice. The formatting of the two "Main article:" links is inconsistent (I don't know which format is preferred). Both "World War I" and "First World War" is used -- perhaps be consistent and use one or the other. In the WWI section, the paragraph on disposal talks about a US disposal program but I'm not clear whether that has anything to do with WWI weapons. Perhaps add a separate section on disposal of chemical weapons that covers all periods. Is it acceptable to cite sources using external links within the body of the article? Otherwise, congratulations. Geoff/Gsl 05:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I see you've started making fixes - thank you kindly. After staring at the same article for so long, it's easy to miss the same typos again and again. I'll take a look at your other points as well: my goal is perfection. -- ClockworkSoul 06:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I know you already supported, but I made changes according to your points. The "disposal" section is one that I will be doing later today (it is almost 2am here) -- ClockworkSoul 06:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Absolute brillance, ClockworkSoul. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 05:52, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow - high praise! Thank you sincerely, Neutrality. It's nice to know that my hard work seem to be paying off. -- ClockworkSoul 06:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. Lead section needs to be longer and I'm missing external links. BTW, what is the difference between suffocation and asphyxiation? Support as soon as other objections are resolved. Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • (Above post by MacGyverMagic) Lead section: I was thinking that also. I'll enhance it a bit tonight (I only have a couple minutes available to me now). Suffocation and asphyxiation are often used interchangably, but suffocation is the act of mechanically causing asphyxia – the restriction of oxygen to the brain. I'll clarify. -- ClockworkSoul 14:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • According to Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (30th edition): -

Asphyxia: pathological changes caused by a lack of oxygen in respired air, resulting in hypoxia and hypercapnia.

Suffocation: asphyxiation

The definition of asphyxia strikes me as rather odd, because a 'lack of oxygen in respired air' alone will not cause hypercapnia. In my opinion, the definition should be: -

pathological changes caused by a lack of respired air, resulting in hypoxia and hypercapnia.

[Note to pedants: my definition is slightly loose because one interpretation may include other causes of type 2 respiratory failure such as COPD or neuromuscular weakness, which are not normally considered as asphyxiation.] Axl

• Support. Rd232 11:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Sorry, as what is there is great, but in correcting the intro I noticed what could be a lot of missing information. The article seems to cover quite little about the actual technology and methods involved. What is there is almost entirely discussed interspersed in the history section. The rest is in the agents section, which is very short in comparison to the history section. What could be covered for ex is how they work, dispersal methods (conventional explosives, planes, crop dusters, etc). What has been tried and what is theorized?, etc. As I understand it, the reason they have not been used more is that they are so difficult to disperse and to get where they are supposed to go without causing casualties to the side using them. Now I did not have time to read the article so some of this may be mixed in, but for presentation sake it should be separate. - Taxman 00:32, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why be sorry? This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for, and I genuinely appreciate the constructive criticism. Dispersal methods would be an excellent addition, and I'll begin a section on them. As a side note, however, historically the main reason that CW weapons have not been used more often is fear of reprisal in kind (this is why the Nazis chose not to employ their new nerve agents against the Allies). Historically, societies have used CW's very successfully against foes that could not respond in kind. The agents themselves were mentioned somewhat briefly because they each already have their own section (nerve agent in particular is fairly detailed). -- ClockworkSoul 01:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Today added an entire section on chemical weapon delivery as part of a greater section on chemical weapon technology that may satisfy one point of your opposition. I'm looking forward to your comments and or criticisms. -- ClockworkSoul 06:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. - most of this should this excellent, and I want to support, but should it be at chemical weapon / chemical weapons instead (these are currently redirects)? The article mentions the use of Zyklon B in the Nazi concentration camps - while clearly genocide, is this really "chemical warfare" (or even the use of a chemical weapon)? The last section is entitled "Chemical weapons and terrorism" - notwithstanding the "war on terror", terrorists using chemical weapons are not really undertaking chemical warfare. Perhaps a daft question, but is napalm a chemical weapon? If not, why not? Shouldn't there be something about persistent versus non-persistent chemicals, decontamination, and NBC countermeasures (antidotes, NBC suits)? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Many people would not agree that the Nazi use of Zyklon B is chemical warfare (and I updated the sentence appropriately, but did not remove it entirely). It is the use of a chemical weapon: hydrogen cyanide, a potent blood agent.

Regardless of whether the use of chemical weapon agents by terrorists is "chemical warfare" according to the dictionary definition is not entirely the point: the terrorists themselves believe that they engaged in asymmetric warfare. To exclude the use of chemical weapons by terrorists from this article would be doing our readers a disservice.

Napalm is not a chemical weapon because its destructive effects are primarily due to fire, and not direct chemical action. I added that to the list of "not chemical weapons because". -- ClockworkSoul 06:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The "Chemical weapon proliferation" is poor and unbalanced. No mention of North Korea or Syria -probably the main proliferators but half the section was about Israel who is certainly not helping any other country gain chemical weapons. No mention of Western companies assisting countries like Libya, Syria and Iraq. More importantly, there is no section at all on the destruction of chemical weapons, armaments and production facilities under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Rmhermen 21:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • This section will require a great deal of effort, and this is the subtopic that I am weakest in. I am going to update this last, and tackle the low-hanging fruit first. Because you are a great deal more versed in this subtopic, if you have time, would you be able to lend a hand? -- ClockworkSoul 06:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• There is a sub-article Chemical_weapon_proliferation. And its lack of extensivity is slightly realted to lack of access to such (reliable and up-to-date) information to the public.--ZayZayEM 04:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't understand the graph (Image:Cw development.PNG). What do the numbers on the y-axis measure? If the numbers are purely qualititative, then I think it's highly misleading for the information to be in graph form (Edward Tufte would call it "chartjunk"). It would be much better to put the same information in a table (it would also be much easier to read). Gdr 13:11, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Please fix up that graph (perhaps to convert to a 3/4 tiered timeline). Other than that a smashing article.--ZayZayEM 04:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Axl 11:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant work here, and I agree that it is at the right page. The amount of visual detail and exposition is stunning. Wally 23:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)