Talk:Nonmetal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * superb use of images and diagrams
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * superb use of images and diagrams
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I will review this article over the next few days. I have gone over the images; all are free and used well. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Prose/MoS quibbles

 * I have been doing some minor copyediting; feel free to undo any and all of my edits.
 * Adabow 07:22, 19 August 2013 ( sign added. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

These are all minor nitpicks; nothing here fails to meet the first criterion. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chemically, the nonmetals have relatively high ionisation energy and high electronegativity;" - should ionisation energy and electronegativity be pluralised?
 * ❌ Since it's referring to ionisation energy and electronegativity values, I don't think it needs to be pluralized. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The overview part of the "Categories" section could do with some more liberal linking
 * ❌ I looked through it. I tried. I really tried. But I really don't see any terms there that aren't already linked elsewhere (well, except metallic bonding, which I have now linked). Could you point me to some terms there that you would like to see linked? Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Sandbh stepped in; looks great now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the boldfacing of 'noble gas' warranted? Done
 * "all known in polymeric forms" is ambiguous: it could mean "all potential oxides are known, and are in polymeric forms" or "all known oxides are in polymeric forms" Done Sandbh (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In 'Abundance and extraction', several elements are mentioned which are not previously mentioned, and should therefore be linked. Done

Referencing

 * Excellently referenced, with a large number of sources. Inline citations where appropriate. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Breadth

 * I think that in the 'Polyatomic nonmetals' section the vast discipline of organic chemistry should be mentioned in a sentence. Perhaps after the sentence describing the tendency for polyatomic nonmetals to catenate? Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Sandbh (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * No bias or POV statements. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Stability

 * No recent edit warring or talk page disputes. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Media

 * There are some fantastic images here, and there are used and captioned well. All are free. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall
I would like to see a mention of organic chemistry, as it is fundamental to the chemistry of carbon.
 * A shrewd and fundamental (to life as we know it) observation. Will do. Done Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is an excellent article. I will place the review on hold for now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that Sandbh has added this, I will pass the article. Great work and well done to everyone involved; keep it up! Adabow (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Timely and incisive review. Much appreciated. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)