Talk:Wetting/GA1

GA Review

Review

I've stumbled upon this article by change and I believe it is up to GA standards. I admit that I haven't read it in detail, but preliminary impressions are that it's of a good quality. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm going to review this article. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to promote this article to GA status. Everything seems to check out. The writing flows well, it has good grammer, no original research as far as I can tell, it stays on topic, is stable, has picture tags, and is neutral. All in all, a Good Article. :)

Now for the criticism/things you can improve on before FA! First of all, a casual scan of the article won't do the average reader any good; it has a lot of big ideas. I like how you defined some terms on the page (contact angle) and also wikilinked them. Keep in mind what it says in the Manual of Style: "A general approach is to start simple, then move toward more abstract and technical statements as the article proceeds."

Also, you need more references! You only have five, and I can't see any of them! The article is short, so it's excusable, but it definately needs more before FA. Try to find at least one online ref. :)

All in all, good job. Please continue to read over this article and to improve other related articles. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]