Talk:Dubnium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Since R8R has told me on my talk page that active work on Pb is finished for now, I feel that it's safe to start the review soon; so I'm reserving it a little in advance! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I think I shall have to go look through this and give it a full copyedit. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done it for you. After my three four copyedits to different sections, everything's fine. [[User:Parcly Taxel|Parcly ]] [[User talk:Parcly Taxel|Taxel ]] 15:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * There are a few uncited paragraphs, such as the introduction to "Discovery" and the first paragraph in "Naming controversy". I think the former can be found in The Transuranium People as well (but unfortunately I've exhausted the Google Books preview of that one); it should in any case not be too difficult to find citations. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 24 is not from ResearchGate; it is a journal article from Physical Review Letters~. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we good now?--R8R (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * I have (finally) had time to give it a good read, and indeed everything important seems to be there. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, all the discovered transactinides are GAs now! Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)