The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for taking up the review! I am quite busy with my own review, so it may take me some time to address the comments. Keres🌕Lunaedits! 14:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is there as an introductory image to the article; a lot of chemical articles have the structure as its lead image. Keres🌕Lunaedits! 14:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. AM
There appears to be a ‘verify’ tag at the bottom of the infobox.
That is for verifying the Identifiers in the chembox and was automatically maintained by CheMoBot until 2018. I don't think the infobox must be verified to get GA, as even featured articles such as rhodocene have this. Keres🌕Lunaedits! 14:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link exothermic; electrodes; foam (as the word has a technical meaning).
Done.
3.1 Natural occurrence
Imo this subsection belongs in the properties section. Thoughts?
I think it should have its own section like the other chemistry GAs.
That's not quite what I meant. My suggestion was that this subsection stays intact with its own title, but is moved out of this section. It could for instance be a section by itself, or a subsection of Properties. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I was suggesting that it be a section by itself. Keres🌕Lunaedits! 14:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that will work. AM
Done.
Cu mines – ‘copper mines’.
Changed.
arising among Cu ore beds oxidation zones in arid climate (also known from some altered slags) – is hard to follow, and looks as if it needs to be copy edited to make the text clearer.
I changed the sentence and deleted some useless parts.
Uses
is this section title needed? I don;t see why the two subsections that follow it can’t be raised to level 3.
Melting points are usually determined experimentally, not extrapolated. To account for this, the note was added. Keres🌕Lunaedits! 00:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not being clearer. See MOS:CIRCULAR for why the link may be useful, but is to be avoided. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the note was removed, as I think it isn't useful enough to stay. Keres🌕Lunaedits! 14:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7 References
Spot checks seems fine.
Ref 4 / 5 / 13 / 15 require page numbers for the text to be verified.
Done.
Ref 7 (Brustolon) has an incorrect author.
Fixed.
Ref 17 should read ‘pp. 220-223’.
Done.
Ref 20 (Morris et al) has an incorrect link.
Fixed.
Refs 21 to 24 need a full citation.
Done.
N What makes you think Ref 30 (Clark) is a reliable source?
8/9 Further reading / External links
(Not GA) There seems a lot here. Bearing in mind that these sections should really only lead to accurate, on-topic additional information that is not included in the article’s text, the lists should be checked, and any inappropriate sources removed.
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 30 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from one slightly questionable source in the References section, everything now looks good, so I'm passing the article. Great work, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
