Talk:Boron/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Quite a comprehensive, wide-ranging, article on Boron.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is quite a comprehensive article with a wide-ranging scope, so I'm awarding GA-status. I think that there is scope for slightly expanding the article and I discuss these below; however their lack is not sufficient to cause me to withhold GA-status nor for putting the WP:GAN On Hold - after all GAs can nearly "always" be improved.

However, the pdf version of reference 70 is flagged as a {deadlink}: the link to the pdf file should be either corrected or removed.

Possible improvements:

• There is no mention of boron hydrides; however diborane is mentioned, but not as a hydride.
• There is no mention of organoboron compounds; however the use of Triethylborane is mentioned, but not as an organoboron compound.
• No mention of Tourmaline mineral group.

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)