Talk:Group 12 element/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start

I am starting review. Additional comments are welcome! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article twice before starting the review process. The article is very well written! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First read comments

First things to look for

Basic problems	Comment
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability	N No problem!
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}	N No major problem!
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars	N No!
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.	N No problem

First look assessment: Y Ok! There is not any "basic problem" in the article, and we can start the review in detail now.

Dead refs

There are three dead refs in the article. That means, the pages used in reference don't exist now and resulting an HTTP 404 error (page not found). Fix these three references: reference 14, 54, 106! Let me know if you have any question!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

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.	This is one of best written articles I have ever read in Wikipedia. The prose is completely clear and concise. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article follows MoS guidelines! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.	There is no problem with sources. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	True! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	True, there is not any original research! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, the article addresses main aspects of the topic!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Absolutely! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, no problem in WP:NPOV. It represents viewpoints fairly! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I have not seen any recent edit war problem. Pass here too! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.	Images are properly tagged.. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	True! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I have read this article multiple times, and I feel currently this is a good article based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Congratulations editors! You have done a great team work! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]