Talk:Group 4 element/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I made some copy-edits to correct spelling and grammar and improve clarity.
 * Lead: Unpentquadium is mentioned in the lead but not in the body of the article. WP:LEAD says: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." There is also a stray sentence at the end of the lead. Please reorganise to consolidate this into a paragraph, two paragraphs would be sufficient for an article of this length. And add some information about Unpentquadium to the History section, explaining its theoretical existence. ✅
 * I have reorganized and partially rewritten the lead paragraphs. I have also added some information about Unpentquadium.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References check out, I fixed two dead links.
 * 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:
 * An excellent article, reminded me of my secondary school chemistry. Just the lead section to be fixed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the lead section is better organized now. Thanks for reviewing the article. Regards, &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rapid response. I ma happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * An excellent article, reminded me of my secondary school chemistry. Just the lead section to be fixed. On hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the lead section is better organized now. Thanks for reviewing the article. Regards, &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 14:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rapid response. I ma happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)