Talk:Copper/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Freywa's been reviewing quite a few of the elements articles (some nominated by me), I'll try doing it the other way round this time! ^_^ Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, time for my first GA review. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a few paragraphs and small chunks of text that still don't have references. I'd be only too happy to pass this once that's over with.
 * Specifically, Physical (bit about nines) and Methods (entire last two paragraphs) . Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Nothing's been done yet... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The purity of copper in electronics is expressed in nines, with a digit specifying the number of nines in the percentage of purity, followed by an N. The higher the digit, the purer the copper is." Um, we just need something showing this use of nines...
 * "The cuprous oxide is converted to blister copper upon heating: 2 Cu2O → 4 Cu + O2. This step exploits the relatively easy reduction of copper oxides to copper metal. Natural gas is blown across the blister to remove most of the remaining oxygen and electrorefining is performed on the resulting material to produce pure copper: Cu2+ + 2 e– → Cu." Cool, but got a source for this?
 * Once these two are this one is cleared, no problems. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This fact simply does not belong here, I guess. It can be removed. F R E  Y W A  09:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One down, one to go. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All done! Entire GA passed. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The great majority of copper is used for electronics for its conductivity and its maleability. The article deserves explanation (by an editor schooled in condensed matter physics/materials) on why copper functions so well in this dominant application. The article is long on "what" and short on "why".--Smokefoot (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this must be any further explained. Copper have greater conductivity than most metals(not including gold, siver and platinum) and it is in price range to be used in this aplications. Does this answer you? 188.230.132.58 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be there already. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "This [conductivity, I guess] is due to all valence electrons taking part in conduction, which results in a charge density of 13.6×109 C/m3 and a drift velocity of ⅓ mm/s at a current density of 5×106 A/m2.[7]" If special to copper (unclear), why do "all valence electrons" in copper "take part" (awkward).... results in a "charge density of 13.6×109 C/m3" (number is non-benchmarked, sounds impressively complicated but its just a number). Similarly the ductility/maleability: "one s-orbital electron on top of a filled electron shell, which forms metallic bonds[1] and have high ductility" (awkwardly phrasing aside), why does this set up give copper high ductility?  Maybe my questions are not answerable in an understandable manner.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)