Talk:Peak uranium/GA1

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

I am going to pass this article after: Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the introduction will be greatly expanded
 * the external links sectio will be trimmed
 * please remove language=English parameter from the citeweb templates

Dead links
--Stone (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.uic.com.au/ne8.PDF
 * http://www.anl.gov/Special_Reports/NuclEconSumAug04.pdf
 * http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Uraniumreport_12-2006.pdf
 * http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2854
 * http://www.moneyweek.com/file/20488/are-we-facing-peak-uranium.html

I will take some time this weekend to fix these issues. Thanks for the review. Kgrr (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I implemented both Nergaal and Stone's suggestions. Kgrr (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

more
This article is seriously underreferenced. I have added multiple tags, but they are only at a quick view. Consider adding more than that. Also, I have some problems with how this article is presented: for example the part with peak urianium worlwide and for each country is very messy written (try using the format I used); also, a lot of the text reads like borderline wp:OR. Please consider rewriting the sentences/paragraphs that are presented as an essay. Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have worked on the article since you left the endless tags.  Everything in the whole article was sourced when it was written.  Some statements are introductory paragraphs that are explained in detail in the body of the article.  It's gone through several cycles of more intro, less intro, more intro ... and battles by people wanting to insert pro-nuclear POV that don't understand peak uranium.Kgrr (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody still working on the article? Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that the election is over, I will have some more time to volunteer towards the project.Kgrr (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been told that on hold GANs may be left only for 7 days, and in much more than that very little of the issues raised here have been covered. Therefore, for now, this article does not comply with GA criteria. Nergaal (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)