Talk:Promethium/GA1

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

Reviewer: AstroHurricane001 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The article is of decent quality and adequately summarizes known relevant facts - recommend clearing up the remaining "citation needed" tag.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Adequate summary of the article; however some minor improvements can be made such as reducing number of semi-colons for readability.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sufficient sources for a well-developed article, though there is just one "citation needed" that needs addressing in section 1.1.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The image of Promethium(III) chloride is Fair use, and remains valid until a free image of the unstable compound can be identified - there are currently no images in the article of promethium metal, or graphics of interstellar promethium that may have been detected via astronomical instruments.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The next step is to make the article on par with Technetium, a current featured article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The next step is to make the article on par with Technetium, a current featured article.