Talk:Seaborgium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Might be too technical but I suppose that is an unavoidable issue with this subject. I will have to read through it a few more times to figure out if this is something that needs to be corrected. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I read it through - very slowly - and, actually, when I take my time the prose is very clear. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * There are several issues with the references:
 * Ref #15 requires an http log-in and is inaccessible to most readers. It will have to be marked with the appropriate template (perhaps 'Subscription required")
 * ✅. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref #16 is unknown/dead.
 * Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something the Ref #16 linkage ("Physico-chemical characterization of seaborgium as oxide hydroxide"/website: www-w2k.gsi.de is still there and it is still dead/unknown. This needs to be corrected before I can sign off on this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strangely that shows up as ref #17 for me; I didn't notice the discrepancy because ref #16 was also broken, coincidentally! (I suppose some of this might be because of the six-month wait for the review; IIRC the links were working when I wrote the article.) Anyway, I've replaced it with an archived copy from the Wayback Machine. Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * References are now good to go - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The two RSC links in External links are dead.
 * Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above issues will need to be fixed before I can proceed with this Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * The copyvio tool found commonality with elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sym=sg and vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Sg but that is because of the use of clearly-quoted material in the WP article. I am satisfied that this is not a cause for concern.  Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * It is a s broad and detailed as it needs to be.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The photo of Seaborg needs a US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with another photo which is definitely public domain in the USA (and with a periodic table in the background ^_^)! Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this one so much better - shows the man in context of his area of notability. Well-done! Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Everything looks good, am doing one final proofreading-readthrough, should now be able to finish within a day or two. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this one so much better - shows the man in context of his area of notability. Well-done! Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Everything looks good, am doing one final proofreading-readthrough, should now be able to finish within a day or two. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, am doing one final proofreading-readthrough, should now be able to finish within a day or two. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Readthroughs
I will have to go through the article a couple of times to make sure I haven't missed anything and to finish assessing it on Criteria 1A. Since this subject is nowhere near my areas of expertise this allmight take me some time, but, pending finding any new issues, I should be able to finish my Review within the week. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Shearonink (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)