Talk:Calcium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parcly Taxel (talk · contribs) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that rewrite was unexpected… Parcly   Taxel  14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Problems found and corrected Parcly  Taxel  04:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the references don't use templates; I've gone ahead and converted them.
 * Nevertheless, there are significant differences in chemical and physical properties between beryllium and magnesium (which behave like post-transition metals, especially aluminium and zinc respectively) and the group members from calcium onwards, and thus the "alkaline earth metal" for the group 2 metals was traditionally only applied to calcium and its heavier congeners. Some redundancy here, and of course there is the debate on whether zinc is a PTM.
 * 40Ca, 42Ca, 43Ca, and 44Ca are predominantly built up in the oxygen-burning and silicon-burning processes; however, 46Ca and 48Ca are too neutron-rich to be so produced and must be produced via neutron-capturing processes. 46Ca is mostly produced in a "hot" s-process, as its formation requires a rather high neutron flux to allow short-lived 45Ca to capture a neutron). 48Ca is produced in the r-process: in type Ia supernovae of progenitors stars whose masses are near the Chandrasekhar limit, electron capture after ignition results in high neutron excess, as well as a low enough entropy that the 48Ca produced mostly survives. No need to mention so many individual isotopes!
 * Lime as building material was used since prehistoric times going as far back as 7000 to 14000 BC. I thought "prehistoric" meant "100,000 BP"…

References are useless. MANY are to Greenwood or to Ullmann and there are no links to those documents. For Ullmann, there is not even a complete reference. The biology section could be much better, even if there is a link to Calcium in Biology. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should there be links to them, since they are offline? Print books still exist! (Even if I gave a Google Books link you wouldn't be able to verify all of it anyway, as it would get hidden fairly quickly for copyright reasons.) ^_^ It's not meant to be a detailed biological exposé, anyway: Ca the element is useful in chemistry, geology, physics, and many other more mundane explanations, so I mostly took Ullmann as a source for the biological aspects since it covers the main uses in some detail, and summarised it. You are free to suggest specific additions. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For Ullmann, there is no reference information anywhere. Ref numbers 9, 11, 40, 46 and 47 just have "Ullmann" and a page number. David notMD (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's Hluchan and Pomerantz, a chapter from Ullmann's encyclopaedia. I tend to mentally refer to it as "Ullmann" anyway, especially since the template is called that too, but I'll edit the refs in the article to clarify this. Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)