Talk:Alkali metal/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am excited to review this article; however, it might take me a few days to complete this. I want to do a thorough review of this to make sure everything is accurate since I feel this article covers an important topic. -- Tea with toast  (話)  22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed
✅ StringTheory11 (talk)

I have completed my review of the body of the text in the article. I will still need to take more time to work through the references, but here are some tasks that need to be taken care of in the meantime. From top to bottom, here it is:


 * Lead When writing a lead, I feel an important part of it is to give the audience reasons why they should care about this topic. The lead should have a paragraph that states that these elements have important industrial uses and biological functions.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * History  While the article states when the elements were first isolated in metallic form, I feel it should also share some more history about the knowledge of these elements before then. For example, in the first sentence of the "Sodium" subsection: "Although sodium has long been recognized in compounds...", there should instead be a sentence more like this: "Sodium was known to exist in compounds x, y, z, but was not isolated until..."
 * ✅ for sodium and potassium. The others seemed to already have had enough info. StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Occurrence Being that these elements do not occur as metals in nature, it is important to state the form in which they do occur in nature, namely as different mineral types. There were important sentences that were hidden, likely because there was a "citation needed" tag, but I don't think it should be too hard to find refs for these. You might try looking through refs that are found in the main articles for the elements, or they might already be stated in some of the refs that are already a part of the article.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Biological Occurrence Many citations are needed here, and this section could also benefit from expansion.
 * Sodium and potassium are hugely important – not just for humans, but for plants and animals too. You do not have to go into as much detail as the Sodium and Potassium articles do, but I think an overview would help the audience appreciate the topic more.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Cesium is highly toxic; its toxicity should be given more prominence here.
 * ✅} StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Precaution  I don't see the point of this section unless it is expanded. Most of the biological precautions should be noted in that section. (For example, the last sentence about Francium could be moved to the previous section). If you want to write more about the explosiveness or how it should be handled in industrial purposes, write that here.
 * , I don't really think how the metals should be handled is necessary for an overview. StringTheory11 (talk)


 * References I will need some more time to go through all of these, but please take a look at them yourself to make sure that all of the items are in formal citation style. For example, I see that some refs have nothing more than a title and retrieval date. If authorship and publishing data are available, please list them.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)

Overall, I see that this article has seen many improvements since its last nomination, and I hope to see this article improved even further. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues with references
Alright, I've finished with my review and here are the following items that need to be taken care of, specifically about the references:
 * Ref#7, the reference about mineral oil is not there. Find a new one
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * I assume that Ref#11 is the one used for the each of the elements in the table given in the article; however, from the placement of the citation note, it looks to be only referring to Francium. Also the link does not direct to the page where the information is given. It looks like each element has a separate page, and I think to be correct about it, you will need to produce a link to each page you are taking information from. While you are doing this, notice that Ref#74 also links to the same website, so be sure not to produce a duplicate ref.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * The following refs need full citation: #12, 13, 18, 42.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Ref#15 is dead, but I don't think you need it anyways as Refs 16 and 17 are sufficient
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Ref#3 and 36 are citing the same paper. Please remove the duplication.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Ref#52 and 53 links both time out. The webpages probably moved; if you can't track them down, then find new refs.
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Ref# 39, 77, 83 are all citing pages from the same website, but the citation styles are different. Please cite them as follows: e.g. Mark Winters. "Title".(with the title linking to the website) WebElements. Retrieved...
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)


 * Finally, the Bibliography should be alphabetized by author
 * ✅ StringTheory11 (talk)

I will place this article on hold until these, and the above items, have been addressed. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Unfortunately, I will not have much time to be on Wikipedia most of next week, but I will respond to you when I can. For this reason, I will permit a time frame of longer than one week if necessary. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you for addressing all of the items that I had listed above. I am impressed with the changes that have been made. Good work! -- Tea with toast  (話)  06:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you for addressing all of the items that I had listed above. I am impressed with the changes that have been made. Good work! -- Tea with toast  (話)  06:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you for addressing all of the items that I had listed above. I am impressed with the changes that have been made. Good work! -- Tea with toast  (話)  06:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)