Talk:Origin and use of the term metalloid/GA2

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

Well written
This article is essentially a timeline and nothing more than that, and its hard for a timeline to be well written. That being said, the article flows rather poorly, and every date mentioned seems to subtract from the overall tempo. Instead of a different paragraph for each date that follows a completely different tangent, the article could be read much smoother if similar topics were grouped together rather than following a strict chronological format. This article has not had any substantial updates since June of 2016, so there is definitely a lack of fixing on this article for the better.

Verifiable
As far as I've seen, there is no original research, so I believe that front is clear.

Broad
After the lead, which has remained incredibly short ever since the first time this article was a candidate for GA, every additional paragraph is simply a small amount of sentences briefly describing tidbits of information concerning the classification of metalloids at different times. The article frequently explores different concepts for one of these paragraphs, before loosely returning to the idea of metalloids. There are many sidetracks that included unnecessary detail, and the names of those that he includes are never offered a first name; only the last name is given, including their introduction.

Neutral
As this is a timeline that seems as if it came directly out of the captions of a textbook, this article remains neutral,

Stable
As this article has not been updated for nearly a year, and no significant updates have been made in over two years, this article meets the criteria for being stable.

Illustrated
This article has a total of two pictures that are not entirely helpful for understanding the point of the article. One of the pictures is of Paracelsus, who is only mentioned once in one paragraph (and sure, photos can help strengthen an article sometimes, but seeing the face of someone mentioned only once is not too helpful). The other isn't that much more useful, a picture of Jons Jacob Berzelius, who is mentioned a total of twice.

Result: Underwhelming Keep
After a careful reassessment of myself, I realized that this is just how this article is supposed to be. It follows a strict chronological pathway from beginning to end, for it is the information behind the origin up unto the present. Timeline articles are supposed to be read this way, and I did not read that. I was not a huge fan of the structure and the tiny paragraphs and image choice, but after seeing other similar articles, I have come to accept this type of article format. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)