Talk:Tin/GA1

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

Reviewer: R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to be reviewing the article but it will take some time though. I'll start with the lead and go down as I review. Geo7777 (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead the lead is pretty good, basically complying with the MoS, but it would be better if it included something about the chemical properties of tin, as it has information about the physical properties.

Characteristics

physical properties

great coverage, clarity and size. Fine for GA.

chemical properties

OK, but if you could add just a little more information it would be great. You could try expanding on the notions or mabye adding on wether the oxide forms a protective covering and a less reactive surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo7777 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I added two sentences about the oxide lyer formation and one ref. --Stone (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll continue from where I left off.

isotopes

good.

etymology

just fine, reasonable coverage on tin's etymology.

History

ancient times

OK.

modern times

Here there is a slight problem. In the second paragraph, it talks about the pricing and how it changed. Don't you think it should be placed under a different section? Yes, it is a big difference, but I don't think it should be under the history section, and much less in the same paragraph with the international tin committee. Likewise, in the third paragraph, it discusses how other materials are called tin improperly. That dosen't all really fit under history, mabye put it into a different section/subsection? I don't mean all of it though, the first few lines are fine.

Compounds and chemistry

inorganic compounds

It is very good, but it is in need of refs. In the whole section, there is only one ref, so there is a need. The refs for the halide or oxide compounds are probably easy as they are well known so please try. And also, in the first line after the "see also Category: tin compounds" did you mean to put normal text on the same line or was it a mistake?

--Stone (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added two refs for the halides and the tin(III).
 * The sentence looks odd, but it is intentionally there to describe the general chemistry.

hydrides

good, but if you could put the formula for tributyltin hydride that would be great for people who are not good or are a novice in chmistry.


 * Added formula of tributyltin hydride.--Stone (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

organotin compounds

Very good.

That's all for now. :)--Geo7777 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The previous reviewer has been inactive for a long time, so I'm overtaking it just to finish it. I'll follow the used scheme, after which will check against every criterion.

Occurrence
 * The first para has no ref in it, and I'd like to see one (if even it would be in a referenced para, this is still to be supported).
 * The fourth one also has no refs, and they are wanted as covering quite specific facts.
 * Added refs, but still have to check if they cover everything.--Stone (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Production
 * The first sentence (looks so alone) seems to be a too short para. And a ref for it is wanted.
 * Added refs, but still have to check if they cover everything.--Stone (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is Democratic Republic of the Congo called Congo-Kinshasa? Is it another name? No matter what, a consistent usage for it should occur: either at all occasions.

Applications
 * No single ref for Tin plating subsection.
 * Specialized alloys subsection contains a fact tag, and two unreffed paras.
 * Punched tin — two paras need refs.
 * The three following subsubsections seem to be too short to be separate. Especially Float glass production.
 * Organotin compounds needs ref for the first subsection and the opening para.

Precautions
 * Too short. Check the main article for info.

Criteria
6 Enough for now. Will add more later with my eyes not so tired.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The map is said to be a work of art in the license, but is thought to be a scientific work by me.
 * The diagram is tagged as it could be vectorized.
 * The last image could have a shorter caption, with text being transferred to the article. The only thing that prevents me from passing the 6b criterion.

1
 * Inconsistency in dialects using: spellings are clearly American, which forced me to add the AmE template to the talk page. But, as I found, the punctuation is mixed: the Americans write like, well, "this," (and not "this",), while the British prefer it 'like that', as you see.
 * The text goes quite easily, but short subsection in the end are not good for a reader, they disturb me, as well as tables in mid-section that break the text.
 * Would like a little larger lead. (the only 1b thing)

3 Enough for this time.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the end with level 3, 4 subsection are fixed, this may be OK.
 * Would like a little longer Chemical reactivity section. Don't insist, though, you got a plus for 3a.

An hour ago, I looked again and again and realized I have nothing to add; on hold.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel this may be classified as a GA, and a long time has passed; thus I'm failing the GAN.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)