Talk:Group 4 element/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- I made some copy-edits to correct spelling and grammar and improve clarity.
Lead: Unpentquadium is mentioned in the lead but not in the body of the article. WP:LEAD says: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." There is also a stray sentence at the end of the lead. Please reorganise to consolidate this into a paragraph, two paragraphs would be sufficient for an article of this length. And add some information about Unpentquadium to the History section, explaining its theoretical existence.
Done
- I have reorganized and partially rewritten the lead paragraphs. I have also added some information about Unpentquadium.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- References check out, I fixed two dead links.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
An excellent article, reminded me of my secondary school chemistry. Just the lead section to be fixed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)- I believe the lead section is better organized now. Thanks for reviewing the article. Regards, —Terrence and Phillip 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your rapid response. I ma happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the lead section is better organized now. Thanks for reviewing the article. Regards, —Terrence and Phillip 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
