Talk:Nitrogen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Returning for another GA review after Cu and Pd. I'm sorry to say that this article is quite far from GA at the moment due to citation and images issues. It's not such a bad fail, though - most of the rest is fine - so feel free to renominate once those issues have been addressed. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Thanks, --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * It looks OK.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * See 2B.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Unfortunately, there is a serious lack of references. E.g. applications of nitrogen compounds, compounds and a lot of paragraphs are not cited at all. For a good article nominee, this seems quite unacceptable.
 * C. No original research:
 * I don't know whether the uncited paragraphs are 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:
 * 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:
 * I would think that there need to be a few more images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: