Talk:Dubnium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since R8R has told me on my talk page that active work on Pb is finished for now, I feel that it's safe to start the review soon; so I'm reserving it a little in advance! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I think I shall have to go look through this and give it a full copyedit. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it for you. After my ~~three~~ four copyedits to different sections, everything's fine. Parcly Taxel 15:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
There are a few uncited paragraphs, such as the introduction to "Discovery" and the first paragraph in "Naming controversy". I think the former can be found in The Transuranium People as well (but unfortunately I've exhausted the Google Books preview of that one); it should in any case not be too difficult to find citations. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 24 is not from ResearchGate; it is a journal article from Physical Review Letters~. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we good now?--R8R (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe so. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I have (finally) had time to give it a good read, and indeed everything important seems to be there. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, all the discovered transactinides are GAs now! Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]