GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: FREYWA 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I have nominated copper for GA. Look here! FREYWA 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
No uses for protactinium? Fine.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Inconsistent mention of coordination (7-fold coordinated vs. coordination 7 in the halides section). Several sentences (like the last one of the applications section) are incoherent in their structure (makes people frustrated) and need to be fixed.
- A. Prose quality:
- Tweaked. It would be easier if you posted awkward sentences, or just go ahead and fix the wording as you read. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Where are the sources for the Isotopes section?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- This is OK but where is the caption for the picture in the halides section?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Wow, this is the fastest GA review I have ever had. Good job, Lanthanon.
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
Who is "Lanthanon"? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)