Jump to content

Talk:Nonmetal/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    superb use of images and diagrams
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will review this article over the next few days. I have gone over the images; all are free and used well. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/MoS quibbles

[edit]
  • I have been doing some minor copyediting; feel free to undo any and all of my edits.
Adabow 07:22, 19 August 2013 ([1] sign added. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Chemically, the nonmetals have relatively high ionisation energy and high electronegativity;" - should ionisation energy and electronegativity be pluralised?
  • The overview part of the "Categories" section could do with some more liberal linking
  • Is the boldfacing of 'noble gas' warranted? Done
  • "all known in polymeric forms" is ambiguous: it could mean "all potential oxides are known, and are in polymeric forms" or "all known oxides are in polymeric forms" Done Sandbh (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 'Abundance and extraction', several elements are mentioned which are not previously mentioned, and should therefore be linked. Done

These are all minor nitpicks; nothing here fails to meet the first criterion. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

Breadth

[edit]
Done Sandbh (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Stability

[edit]

Media

[edit]

Overall

[edit]

I would like to see a mention of organic chemistry, as it is fundamental to the chemistry of carbon.

A shrewd and fundamental (to life as we know it) observation. Will do. Done Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this is an excellent article. I will place the review on hold for now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Sandbh has added this, I will pass the article. Great work and well done to everyone involved; keep it up! Adabow (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timely and incisive review. Much appreciated. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]