Talk:Graphene/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 18:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: ten found, six repaired and four tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * One definition given in a recent review on graphene is: recent is a vague word, be more specific, attribute the athour and date.
 * Likewise with A previous definition is:
 * The earliest TEM images  needs explanation
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The IUPAC compendium of technology states: "previously, descriptions such as graphite layers, carbon layers, or carbon sheets have been used for the term graphene... it is incorrect to use for a single layer a term which includes the term graphite, which would imply a three-dimensional structure. The term graphene should be used only when the reactions, structural relations or other properties of individual layers are discussed." Citations needed for all quotes
 * 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:
 * After a complete read through, I concur with the addition of the "too technical" template, which was added last month. There are a number of uncited statements, some tagged from September 2010. The organization is poor and a number of dead links. The article has potential, but is not near GA standard at present. The nomination is by an IP with no other contribution history - I judge this as C class at best. Quickfail. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * After a complete read through, I concur with the addition of the "too technical" template, which was added last month. There are a number of uncited statements, some tagged from September 2010. The organization is poor and a number of dead links. The article has potential, but is not near GA standard at present. The nomination is by an IP with no other contribution history - I judge this as C class at best. Quickfail. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After a complete read through, I concur with the addition of the "too technical" template, which was added last month. There are a number of uncited statements, some tagged from September 2010. The organization is poor and a number of dead links. The article has potential, but is not near GA standard at present. The nomination is by an IP with no other contribution history - I judge this as C class at best. Quickfail. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)