Talk:Silicon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 13:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review, expect detailed comments soon. First glance seems okay compared to the other elements GAs but there might be some issues that I'll look into. 1.02 editor (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC) oh yah im in GMT +8 in case you are wondering. See my userboxes for more details. 1.02 editor (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

detailed

most silicon is used commercially……synthetic polymers called silicones. Could you provide a ref or is it in one of the three books under 'bibliography'?
- This is in the lede section and is hence supported by the body. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~most people probably won't know that silica is the same as silicon dioxide (they also link to the same page), maybe you could mention it somewhere or change it completely?.~~ Also could you move the link for Silica to the lead?

red link to tertaethysliane. Is it a spelling mistake?
- Tetraethylsilane (as in the article) is correct, and there just happens not to be an article on it yet (it is SiEt₄). Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

link to electron.
- Done Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Fermi level is halfway between these… what are 'these'
- The valence and conduction bands, as just stated. I have changed it so that it now states this in full. Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
could you link/explain a p-type semiconductor and link n-type to the appropriate section/subsection?
- Linked p-type and n-type semiconductors to their respective sections. Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can the melting and boiling point be included in the lead (not just in infobox)?
- Added the sentence "Its melting and boiling points of 1414 °C and 3265 °C respectively are the second-highest among all the metalloids and nonmetals, being only surpassed by boron (carbon sublimes rather than melts at atmospheric pressure, albeit at a higher temperature than boron)." Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

isotopes ->
- can you remove the sentence that mentions silicon-28 is the most abundant as the percentage already says it.
- I interpret 'most' as only one. Could you change it?
  - Changed to "two stablest" for clarity. I have added an explanation of why ²⁸Si is the most abundant, to justify keeping the statement. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
silica-> is there need for everything to be listed and a photo provided for each?
- I think so; it is a very common compound, forming after all over 10% by mass of Earth's crust as quartz alone. As for the gallery, I thought that the subject matter would appear less dry if readers could see what all of this meant for their appearance. ^_^ I will note that not all forms listed are illustrated with a photo. Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it is mentioned twice that silicon is rather inert. Is there a reason?
- AFAICS this is not mentioned twice. The first time says "Crystalline bulk silicon is rather inert" (silicon); the second time says "Silica is rather inert chemically" (silica). Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
electronics-> end of first and while of second paragraph is unreferenced.
- Everything there has now either been referenced or deleted. Double sharp (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Biological role-> what is lodging potential
- I have removed this, due to not being able to find the original source (I took over this section from an older version of the article before my rewrite). Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Safety-> could you explain some effects of silicon on the human body?
- Added. Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

could the Bibilography and References section be combined?
- The Bibliography section lists three books that are cited very often, so that the References section only needs to include page numbers for them, instead of repeating everything over and over. I agree that it makes more sense with Bibliography under References, as in iodine (which I also brought to GA), and I have changed it accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

I've flagged out some issues that would need to be addressed and/or fixed before I pass the article and would be putting this article on hold for now. 1.02 editor (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks better, would do a final lookthrough before passing.1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 09:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1.02 editor: Thank you! I'm afraid I may have to ask for another hold for a few more days to get those references for the Electronics section. My time is currently in rather short supply and the bits I can spend on WP are being spread out a bit too thinly. Hopefully this will be done soon... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: take your time (but not too much!), I can completely understand as I've had my busy periods too. Try to finish it before April fools as I'd be busy causing mayhem then o(^▽^)o. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 14:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I anticipate (hope!) having some time open up in the next few days. Hopefully my saying it won't jinx it this time...I've used up most of today's time on WT:ELEM discussions. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues concerning the article have been addressed. I would give the article a final look and pass it by noon (GMT+8) 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 16:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1.02 editor: Actually I haven't yet added the references for the Electronics section – though I think I found them. ^_^ I do plan on expanding the article with a bit more stuff after the GA (details about pure Si production for electronics via Czochralski, Peterson elimination reaction, Nergaal's comments, etc.) Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1.02 editor: OK, references added. Double sharp (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. All issues have been addressed. Passing. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 03:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]