Talk:Bohrium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Review on hold until referencing issues are cleaned-up: Ref #26 has gone dead, Ref 10-File Not Found, Ref 18 connection timed out

   @Shearonink:: Added archiveurl for ref 26, ref 10 and 18 have DOI, so URL is not necessary and the URL can be deleted. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Shearonink:  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   There seem to be no webarchive/Wayback Machine URLs for Refs 10 & 18... (I just ran a Wayback tool on Ref #10 and the machine that serves the file is down right now.) It bothers me that these two references turn up in so many sources but the actual text reminds somewhat inaccessible to Wikipedia's general readership.

   ResearchGate has the full text for reference 10, which I have added a link to, but unfortunately not for reference 18. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   • On my last pass reading the article, I noticed that there are two redlinked parameters in the references: Ref 21 & Ref 22 both have "chapter= ignored" notices - please fix these. Help:CS1 errors gives instructions on how.
     • @Shearonink: Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This review is on hold pending fixing 2 reference parameter issues

   Congrats, it's a GA!