Talk:Pierre-François Chabaneau

Pierre-François Chabaneau has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 24, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 21, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that while attempting to produce malleable platinum, Pierre-François Chabaneau lost his temper and smashed all of his laboratory equipment?

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Infobox

I would like to remove the infobox as being completely redundant. If there is a consensus. Carlotm (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pierre-François Chabaneau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and I should have the full review up soon.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Everything looks good with this article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]