Talk:Polonium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 21:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall take a look at this over the next few days, though shall be unavailable for the period 10-13th of April.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

First thoughts are:

• Some of the article needs references - for example, the whole detection section, the Manhatttan Project use paragraph, etc.
  • Ref added for the latter. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I finished adding refs. There may be a few more. Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Death cases" - what does this mean? Deaths? Potential deaths? Please clarify.
  • Could you tell me where it is? Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Third paragraph.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      •  Done Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The idea about Marie Curie naming it after her homeland for political means is controversial, please source.
  •  Done (though apparently not by me). Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Results are expected April 2013". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - either they have arrived or not, and should be added at the appropriate moment. I have seen numerous articles which say "so-and-so is expected by the fall of 2005" still - these sort of sentences may be potentially useful now but will become dated very quickly.
  •  Done Changed to "results have not yet been released". Also added ref. Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Infobox - no references for this data, presumably there should be.

  WP:Elements couldn't figure out an elegant way of sourcing their infoboxes without bringing too much clutter. As it stands, the button "r" at the bottom leads to a collection of datasets (actual sources), which in turn are all referenced and watched against unwarranted changes by new editors. Only data that are not present in those standard datasets are separately referenced in the infoboxes. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from these the article is "Good" and should be fairly easy to improve to the required standard.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Yes. -

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Yes, almost all sources online -

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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:ne well-justified fair use image, all others acceptable -

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)