Talk:Palladium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll review Pd (my 2nd GA review after Cu). I should have comments up soon. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Characteristics section: do we really need that table? The section prose could be improved.
  • Also, I understand the use of a table, but aren't there nicer layouts possible?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Some statements (e.g. XPD) are unreferenced Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll write more later --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some points from vanderkrogt.net on the history which aren't mentioned. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Improved the history section with published journal article. --Stone (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do we really need that much in the lead? See rhodium.

• Right will try to remove the less relevant things.--Stone (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• All in all I'd prefer to see a layout such as that of Rh. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The compounds section seems too short. Look at samarium. Although it is much less well known, it has much more compound information. I'd greatly prefer the Sm layout.
• Will try to improve the compounds section, although To much info on every possible compound might be a little bit much for the elements articles.--Stone (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• vanderkrogt.net has more information about the history of Pd stuff, should be very useful for this article (History section) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Improved the history section with published journal article. --Stone (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose doesn't flow that well in some places, see above.

   Well, it's not actually that bad, so putting it on hold first. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

   OK, good. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Good work - every para has at least one reference. However there are still some unref'd statements.

   Resolved --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Compounds section could be improved. Also, I would prefer to have separate "physical characteristics" and "chemical characteristics" sections.

   Should be OK now. Adding too much in the compounds section doesn't seem right for articles about the element itself, not the compound. As of now it's quite comprehensive with respect to the major topic of palladium compounds used as catalysts. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

   Also I'd like to see a health issues section, and perhaps split "safety" into "precautions" and "health issues".

   Put more in the safety section and renamed it "precautions". --Stone (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

   Some important bits on the history, particularly the furore caused by Pd being offered for sale instead of being announced in some reputable science journal, aren't included. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

   • Improved the history section with published journal article. --Stone (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   It's OK, but a few more images wouldn't spoil anything. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

   A lot of useful images have been added, so there's nothing else to say about this. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It looks more than good enough for me to pass it. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)