Talk:Niobium/GA2

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • At the bottom of the references section there is a bulleted link to the Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory Niobium site. Is this actually used as a reference? If so, please put it in line, if not, drop it down to the external links section.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Deadlinked references:
    • Current ref 19 (A New Metallic Compound) deadlinks
    • #34 (Development and Production of High Strength Pipeline Steels)
    • #39 (A Success Story) (now #40)
    • This still gives me a link to a page of undecipherable gibberish characters. The DOI link works fine - it's the link in the title I'm having issues with.
    • References needed:
    • A reference is needed for the end of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph of the Occurrence section
    • Done for second paragraph added ref.--Stone (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already done for the first paragraph.--Stone (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last equation in the Production section
    • It basically derived from ref 27 and ref 28 which explain the reaction in the following sentence.--Stone (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentences of the second and third paragraphs of the Other uses section
    • Already done 3 refs have been added.--Stone (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other reference issues:
    • Current refs 1 and 2 (WebElements) go to what is apparently a homepage, rather than to pages with these titles.
    • Current ref 3 (Bernath) goes to a PDF journal article with a different title.
    • Done (changed to real title in the journal) --Stone (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Book refs really should have page numbers, if possible.
    • do you have specific ones in mind besides #4? Nergaal (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errr...all of them? #5, 6, and 8 definitely, and any others I may have missed in the quick scan I just did. Basically, all books should include page numbers, and at the moment none of them do. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References that are not in English (for example #10) should be marked as such.
    • Done language German --Stone (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check through all of your references to see if any others that are not in English need to be marked. For example, 41 and 42 (Austrian Mint) are not in English.
    • Reference #10 (Kouptsidis) needs publisher information.
    • Done added publisher --Stone (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been brought up during a previous FAC. Nevertheless, the guy presents his references and as much as I've checked them up, they always seemed to backup his statements. I believe that as long as the referenced statements here are not controversial, this site should be ok, especially for a GA. Nergaal (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works for me, I guess. However, as with the other source I questioned, please replace this source if you happen to come upon a more reliable one. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs 35 and 37 (Bhadeshia and Hebda) need access dates, and please spell out the publisher name for 37.
    • Done changed assessdate to accessdate and it showed up and changed CBMMto Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineração--Stone (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please capitalize the publisher names of refs 40 and 41 (Austrian Mint).
    • Done now Austrian Mint--Stone (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the only one I could find.--Stone (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess this is fine for now, but if at any point you find a more reliable source for this information, please replace it.
    • Please decide to list authors either by last name or first name, and stick with it through all of the references.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article needs quite a bit of work on its references before it can be promoted to GA status. I have held off evaluating the prose until I see that work is being completed. For the moment, I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow the editors time to address my concerns. If you have any questions, please drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good with the references, and I've done a check of the prose that resulted in some minor copyedits but no major questions. Very nice job, and so I am promoting this article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations guys, job well done!!! Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Niobium/GA2&oldid=850918279"