Talk:Vanadium/GA2

GA Review

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

• Where are the references for the following:
  • The paragraph that begins with "The correspondence between vanadate"

    Petergans added ref --Stone (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Three factors are rather" paragraph

    Petergans added ref --Stone (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Vanadium has been detected spectroscopically in light from the Sun and some other stars." sentence

    added ref, done--Stone (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Purification of vanadium" paragraph

    added ref, done--Stone (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Nonetheless, there is no evidence that vanabins carry oxygen, in contrast to hemoglobin and hemocyanin." sentence

    added ref, done--Stone (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "The most dangerous compound" paragraph

    deleted sentence and added references --Stone (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "and other organs." clause

    added ref, done--Stone (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Metallic vanadium is potentially a fire hazard, particularly when in a finely-divided state." paragraph

    deleted unreferencable para --Stone (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Other uses" should be written as prose rather than bulleted points

  It is easier to find one of the minor uses in a bulleted list than in the text, but will try it on the weekend.--Stone (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Done but needs a look of a native speaker.--Stone (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is the "Vanadium in literature" really necessary? I don't think it is.

I concur to this. While cute, there are hundreds of compounds more relevant than the book. Nergaal (talk)

I like it but if it is not necessary we can delet it.--Stone (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete it. Gary King (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted!--Stone (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The prose needs to be better. Shouldn't "that has the symbol" be "that is represented by the symbol"? "was (incorrectly) suggested" – The brackets are unnecessary. Please give the entire article a run-through. Gary King (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try my bes tomorrow.--Stone (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried to improve, but still ..... --Stone (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it ready for me to take another look, or do you want more time? Gary King (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Will call for help at the Elements project! And than I will be back.--Stone (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it got a complete workover and I think it is OK now, please have a look.--Stone (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "of an oxide"

  done --Stone (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is the article using American or British spelling? "stabilises" is British, with the "s" in "ses", while "analyzing" is American, with the "z" in "zing".

  I think this is solved now.--Stone (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "his claim of discovery four" – to clarify, as it isn't really all that clear what he claimed otherwise. Technically he didn't claim anything, just discovered.

  changed sentence --Stone (talk)

• "Vanadium has good structural strength.[clarification needed]" – There's a tag here.

  sentence was deleted.--Stone (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• There are a lot of small paragraphs. Can you merge them (logically) so that they flow better?
• Can you narrow down the number of images in the article? Free images are good, yes, but sometimes it's possible to go overboard with too many. Choose the ones that are most appropriate, and the rest can be left to a link to a Commons page. All four images in the gallery, for instance, is that necessary?

Gary King (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged several of the small paragraphes and reduced the number of images! Now better? The gallery was really a little to much. --Stone (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay passing Gary King (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)