Wikipedia:Peer review/Niobium/archive1

Niobium

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am wondering weather there is anything missing in terms of content in order to become an FA. Nergaal (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to read-up on this before I can give a complete reply but so far I do see some MOS and V issues that will come up in a FAC:

Images should not be left-aligned at the top of sections and should not interfere with section titles.
Single paragraph sections should be avoided.

In addition, we have already established in other FACs that the below references should not be cited:

van der Krogt. Instead, consult what he cites to confirm facts and cite those publications directly.
WebElements.com

In general, I think more can be written about this but I won't have specifics until I consult my references. Oh, and the ==Characteristics== section should come before ==History== per our own standards. But it may be time to look at those to be sure they are what we want. --mav (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review

I got rid of WebElements and van der Krogt will go tomorrow!

Got all of them!!

With the images I am not very good but to shovel them arround is not a big iisue.
The single paragraphs will get a look soon!
I have also plenty of references and you can writte a lot, but most of it makes no real point any more. But it would be great if you find something good!

I want to nominate it,but not befor I got imput from the elements project people.--Stone (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more I think the more I realize that all the element articles tend to be a bit thin on the chemistry part. Most of the times (as here also) the only mentioned compounds are the binary ones. Sure the oxides and halides are the most obvious ones, but for each transition metal compound there should be an organometallics paragraph too, or at least something about ligand complexes. Also, about the history/characteristics order I would argue for history first, at least for the less common elements (i.e. those discovered in the past few centuries). Among others, this allows for a nice sequitur from occurence into productions, then applications, then hazards. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]