Antoine Lavoisier was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stormyruiz. Peer reviewers: JonGreenberger, Analiese Batchelor.
I feel that the article as a whole requires more citations for certain statements, such as his contributions to proving the law of conservation of mass. Perhaps also there should be a direct citation for the description Lavoisier's system of chemical nomenclature. I'm sure there are other examples of this in the article that I have not mentioned as well.
Also, and this may just be me, but I think the wording used in the chemical revolution section feels somehow biased? It isn't really biased in any way as far as I know, but statements like how Lavoisier's oppositions lacked evidence against him and statements about how precise he was in his measurements feel as though they were made in support of Lavoisier rather than remaining neutral. I also think the phrase "Pioneer of Stoichiometry" shouldn't be used for similar reasons, at least as a title. Maybe "Invention of Stoichiometry" or "Research on Stoichiometry" would feel more neutral?
This needs more discussion; SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, you might want to undo pending consensus here. The list on p192 of that linked ref has many more than 33 entries. Are only some of them "elements"? Is there possibly a confusion between the modern definition of "element" and what that word was used to represent at that time? The subsequent sentence in our article likewise lists many more than 33 (and that longer list seems comparable to the linked ref), so it's a dual problem: it's not clear how the ref supports the claim, and it gave us two consecutive sentences that contradicted each other. Cobb's book (e-text ISBN978-1-4899-2770-5, printed [ISBN978-0-306-45087-7) is 475 pages; TurnerValley, could you be more speciifc with your citation of it? DMacks (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've removed the whole source as I cannot find it. I suspect that the actual source is "Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution", but I cannot access the book. Liu1126 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done@Liu1126: that edit of yours doesn't appear to have happened? I'm not sure Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution is the same thing. That is listed as a ref in the article, with an author of Simon Schama. The article has several other footnotes for Chronicle of the French Revolution (not Citizens:...) by Jacques Legrand with an ISBN 0582051940, one digit off-by-one. I will fix it. But we also do need a page-number, so I will tag it. Yay for checksum! Thanks for raising this concern, 76.14.122.5. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably another database error as I didn't check if the edit saved after making it. Been running into them all day for some reason. Liu1126 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]