Talk:Rhodium/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is very good, easy to read. Shouldn't be too difficult for most readers to understand.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is adequately referenced, with reliable sources. Looks good.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The major aspects of the article are covered, including the chemical properties, discovery, applications, etc. I think it might be a good idea to move the 'occurrence' section up to fall immediately after 'characteristics' -- so the article would flow more naturally from a description of it's properties to its occurrence in nature or man-made activities.
 * Moved the occurrence section.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'history' section is usually the first section, immediately after the lead. In this case, it might be more accurate to change the title of that section to 'discovery' as well, since it really covers the discovery of the element.
 * Moved the history section and expanded it by the two mayor applications which were used in the early 2000s century in the 1920s and the 3-way converter in the mid 1970s.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead section is also too short, and doesn't really accurately summarize the article. For one, the applications section states that the primary use is in catalytic converters in automobiles, but this isn't even mentioned in the lead.
 * Expanded the lead with the applications.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article meets all WP:NPOV guidelines and requirements.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Not really over 50 edits since January, so I'd say the article is very stable.
 * 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 images are all tagged and captioned as appropriately required.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is in excellent shape! Save a few minor issues with criterion #3, I think this article meets the GA criteria. It can be promoted once the issues raised above are satisfied. I'll put it on hold until 6/23/2010, so that the issues can be resolved. WTF? (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Articles passes. WTF? (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)