Talk:Niobium/GA1

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

I wanted to nominate Niobium for a Good Article, because after hard work I feel that it has the potential to be one.--Stone (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail
Unfortunatly, this article has not yet reached GA status. The article has some issues that need to be addressed, and I feel these could not be resolved within the seven day "on hold" period. Here is a list of improvements which need to be made in order for the article to meet the Good article criteria: -


 * Two non-free images are being used in this article, depicting coins that contain nobium. Having two images fails NFC criteria #3a, minimal usesage, as readers only really need to see one image of a coin to understand the way Noibium is used. Please pick one image, and then for that image provide a fair use rationale for it's inclusion in the article. The current fair use rationales are not adequate as they must argue why the images are valuable for their inclusion in the article. In this case the image would both illustrate alternative uses for the metal Niobium and also show how different colours can be created using anodizing. The creation of another colour using anodizing should also be included in the images caption when used on the article.


 * References are needed where I have placed fact tags.


 * There article contains quite a bit of jargon. I have an A grade A-Level in chemistry and I didn't understand some words, alot of readers may not have even studied chemistry to this level. Though it is good that alot of these terms are linked to relavant wikipedia articles as is recommended by WP:Jargon it can be frustrating if a reader has to contantly read other articles in order to understand the original one they are on. Some words I feel need in-article explanations are multicore complexes, substoichetic compunds, hygroscopic, magnetic penetrator depth, capture cross-section, reactive metal anodizing and perovskite-like structure.
 * improved


 * The Numismatics section should be written as prose. See WP:Embedded lists for more information on when lists are appropriate.


 * The inclusion of the chemical equations for both niobium and tantalum clutters the article a little. I would leave the first two equations as it is describing the step after mixed oxides are obtained but after this only the Niobum equations need be included. Also, please write a sentence leading into the equation, stating exactly what they are. For expample: The following is the chemical equations for the reaction of pottasium flouride with niobium floride to give a potassium floride complex.

I feel I should add that the history section of this article is very good and even though this contains chemistry it is explained well. It is in this manner that some of the other areas of the article which suffer from inclusion of technical jargon, such as the production and properties section, should be written.
 * I have clarified a few. Since this is not a FAC, unless you have specific examples, I don't quite understand your opposition. Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel this review is in error, you can ask for it to be reassesed. Otherwise, once these alternations have been made, the article can be re-nominated for good article status. Please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page if you have any problems, and good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)