Talk:Glass/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily take up and review the article nominated --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KAP03: Although on hold period has expired, I will delay it 3 days to allow further improvements before deciding whether to pass or fail it. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There is a consistency issue regarding including or not including the names of chemical compounds (especially of some that only someone with higher than average chemistry knowledge would know). Please check my comments below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Compliant with manual of style.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Layou guidelines regarding references and in-line citations are followed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Per my comment below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some in-line citations for verification are still missing. Likely not original research but could be perceived like that.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism found in article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, however it would be beneficial if Aqueous solutions section was expanded.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused on the topic without getting into unnecessary details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No editorial bias or other neutrality problems found in article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is not affected by any recent edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are appropriately tagged with their copyright status. No fair-use rationales are needed since the article doesn't contain non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The nominator had significantly improved the article, however some citations are still missing, and there is a consistency issue. Please check my comments.

comments

A large number of citations is missing. Please address all "citation needed" and {{refimprove}} templates.
Last paragraph of History of silicate glass section needs copyediting. Ideally should be rewritten however omitting the first "are" at "scientists are observing...." would work since from what I understand, these scientists are developing the techniques described. Done -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~File:Cups2.png should be moved to color section (ideally somewhere on the right). It fits better there and is more relevant.~~ Done -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In optical properties section, the images (except the magnifying glass) appear to be irrelevant. To be more specific, two different types of drinking glass and another image whose relevance isn't explained are included, whereas an images showing optical fiber, one of the most important application of these properties isn't. I would recommend including one (why not from that article) and removing the wine glasses (or moving them somewhere else). Done -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~do you think that Aqueous solutions section could be expanded a bit?? At least to present some applications of this if something more is not possible within the seven days of "on hold" period.~~ Done -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~For the same paragraph, The example part is a bit difficult to understand for someone who doesn't have in-depth knowledge on the topic. Maybe an explanation or at least a link would be beneficial.~~ Done -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that in some areas of the article chemical compounds are named and in some others only the symbols are included (some of which are mentioned for the first time). Could you please check it??

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.