Talk:Bismuth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. I would like to alert the contributing editors that Ref #25 contains a dead link. Please fix. Thanks, and i look forward to this review! --Tea with toast (話) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues needing to be addressed

The introduction states that Bismuth is chemically similar to arsenic and antimony, but does not give any reason why they do. From the article's text, many similarities are made between bismuth and lead and tin and few are made between the previously mentioned compounds. I know that there is a difference between chemical properties and physical properties, and that the reason behind the similarities is likely due to being in the same group or period, but the reader may not, so please clarify this in the introduction.
The "Recycling" section is a bit confusing and disorganized, and it also has some missing citations. There are several sentences that do not pertain to bismuth recycling very much and may belong else where in the article (such as "applications"). I find the following sentence hard to understand: "The most important sustainability fact about bismuth is its byproduct status, which can either improve sustainability (i.e., vanadium or manganese nodules) or, for bismuth from lead ore, constrain it; bismuth is constrained." What does vanadium and manganese have to do with this? What is meant by constrainment?
References...(Ref# as of this version)
- The following refs are missing some type of citation information (e.g. date, source, access date, etc.), please complete: 1, 10, 23, 39, 45, 47, 53, 67
- Refs #5 & 65 need new pages/sources since they are most likely broken links
- Ref#12 needs page numbers. Being that it is cited so many times, I feel it is likely that the multiple pages are being referenced.
- Ref#39 links to the index webpage, not issue 29, which is the real source.

I will put this article on hold until these issues are addressed. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References might have shifted and will shift, thus I refer to the above version.

Replaced ref. 1 (and corrected crystal symmetry), tidied refs. 5, 10, 39, 47, 53, 67.
Ref. 12 is a one-paragraph summary. It is cited so often because it is printed in a "Bible". I've added the page number.
I have substituted refs. 23, 39, 45 and 65 with proper books and USGS reports, expanded and tidied some other parts, and would probably stop there. This article is far from perfect, and can be expanded using the bibliography books (they contain some interesting details that are not mentioned in the article, though many might suit better in the articles on compounds). Materialscientist (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am impressed by the changes you have made! The "Occurrence and production" section is much improved. I also appreciate the figure you made for the pricing section. Great job! --Tea with toast (話) 02:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am pleased with all the changes that have been made. Thanks for all your hard work! --Tea with toast (話) 02:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]