Talk:Neutron/GA1

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

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. StringTheory11 04:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I will have to quick-fail this article due to a SEVERE lack of sources and bad prose. I feel that I have to downgrade this article to a C, which I have done. StringTheory11 18:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Requesting semi-protection due to vandalism
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Requesting semi-protection due to vandalism
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

A few preliminary points to work on:


 * There is a citation needed in the lead. This will need to be fixed.


 * The references in the "further reading" section are not complete.


 * Refs 1, 2, 8, 10-13, and 17 need to be more than bare URLs.


 * Many refs need access dates.


 * This article has many unreferenced paragraphs. I am of the opinion that every paragraph should have at least one reference before an article is a GA.

More to come later. StringTheory11 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rename "sources" to "natural sources", and move all artificial source info into "production". Also, the section needs to be expanded.
 * Many subsections in "intrinsic properties" are too short to comfortably be sections. I believe that if a section only has one paragraph, it is not worthy of a section. Either expand these or merge then with other sections.
 * "Neutron compounds" should be a subsection of "intrinsic properties".