Wikipedia:Peer review/Tungsten/archive2
- 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 May 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
When I started editing this article, it was B-class. I added many inline references, cleaned up the formatting, and although I'm not completely done, I think it's ready to be submitted to GA.
Thanks, Ziggy Sawdust 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Mrshaba comments:
- I think the high melting temperature is mentioned one time too many. I realize this is an important property but the page starts and ends mentioning this property.
- The Chromium page combines the etymology within the history section. Consider this because both sections are relatively short and the topics seem to complement each other. The Helium page has history down the page a bit but where you guys have it seems fine.
- I think I found and fixed the punctuation after reference problem. Also removed a redundant sentence that mentioned fluorescent lighting.
- There's still some cases of Celsius being spelled out. I don't think this is desired per the MoS unless it involves a conversion. i.e X Celsius (x F)
- The first sentence of the Chemical Properties seems to need a home or some other sentences around it to keep it company. "Tungsten resists attack by oxygen, acids, and alkalis."
- The first sentence of the Biological role also seems to be hanging. Maybe combine it with the next sentence without a break.
- The tungsten (VI) oxide link doesn't work. The red link is distracting. If it can be fixed fix it, and if it's not essential consider removing it.
- I realize this is a chemistry page but the chemical formulas that open up the first sentence of the Production section are over-kill.
- How is it that the Spanish isolated the element but the Swedes named it? I'm just curious. There might be an interesting bit of history there.
- Look at the reference section on the Gold, Mercury and Helium pages. The type is smaller, there's no underlining and they look cleaner. I know formatting references are a pain but consider this.
- Consider the wolframite picture for the page.
- I hope this review helps. I've given this review hoping for a reciprocal review of the Solar energy page. No worries if you can't get through it but any suggestions would help. Mrshaba (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)