Talk:Origin and occurrence of fluorine/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 18:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"From the perspective of cosmology, fluorine is relatively rare, with 400 ppb in the universe." - is that per billion atoms? Also, some context with other elements might help put this in perspective.
This article is pretty good. The prose quality seems a little lower than most featured articles, so it'd be worth getting a copyedior in. I've made a number of copyedits already, [1] - Still, the prose isn't bad by any means, just not as polished as it should be.
Image copyright checks out.
Now, the major issue this has is that the vast majority of this article already appears in Fluorine, with nearly identical text. I somewhat doubt this is a viable spinoff, and this could come back to bite this article later. At the least, the copyedits should be moved back to the main article.
I'd like to hear what you have to say on that point before promoting this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, apologies for being a drive-by nominator. :-)
- Second, though, while I thought it was already GA material based on current content, there is indeed a lot more detail we can go into here. E.g. how is the F actually produced in stars? and expanded info on how F2 actually gets into the antozonite. So yeah, it might not look like it now based on the content, but I believe it's a viable spinoff though it should have some more details in it. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, although if that major of changes are coming, should we promote it now, or leave it for later? Looking briefly at the other Fluorine GANs, they seem much more stable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- will try to work in this stuff tomorrow. :-) after that spurt I suppose it will dip back down to its usual stability. :-) Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll start on the other Fluorine GANs. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- will try to work in this stuff tomorrow. :-) after that spurt I suppose it will dip back down to its usual stability. :-) Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, although if that major of changes are coming, should we promote it now, or leave it for later? Looking briefly at the other Fluorine GANs, they seem much more stable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Per [2], closing this, as it's going to be merged. ✗ Fail, but only technically. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)