Talk:Tungsten/GA1

GA review 1
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tungsten/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Tungsten (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ziggy Sawdust 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On hold: This article is currently awaiting improvements before pass/fail. Just needs a few citations, mainly. delldot on a public computer talk 01:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving comments from my previous review here (editing history is at history for Talk:Tungsten):

A very well-written article that was interesting and a pleasure to read. I've included in this review stuff that isn't a deal breaker for GA status because a little bird told me someone wanted to take this to FAC. (You go, Ziggy!) (Apologies for the weird additions to this review, I'm at work, so I keep having to save the page, log out, and hop up.  Also I'm realizing too late that I should have put these on the PR page.)

Not that important, but would be nice to fix

 * Flesh out the references with author, date, title, publisher, and accessdate, especially the ones that are currently just raw URLs.
 * I think the hacksaw thing is a little too detailed for the third sentence, I would leave it more general and get into the specifics of what you can cut it with further down.  Similarly, I don't know if you need "as both the filament and target" for the X-ray stuff in the lead.
 * Under "Physical properties", the word "work" is repeated a lot. Maybe you could substitute "metalworking" or something to cut down on the repetitiveness.  Also, those sentences are a little choppy and could maybe stand to be combined into fewer, longer ones.
 * Perhaps you should check with WikiProject Elements, but my instinct is that you should expand 'yr' to 'years' to avoid unnecessary abbrev.'s. :P (I notice the FA Titanium has 'years').
 * It's best to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral, as in "27 artificial radioisotopes of tungsten..." Spell out or reword.
 * The sentence "Tungsten resists attack by oxygen, acids, and alkalis" is a little lonely there by itself; maybe you could expand on the concept and explain for the lay reader what attack means. It might be good to bulk up this part of the section to give the reader a bit of an introduction to the rest of it.
 * A few sentences could probably be explained more for the lay reader, e.g. "Aqueous tungstate solutions are noted for the formation of heteropoly acids and polyoxometalate anions under neutral and acidic conditions." Maybe define aqueous, heteropoly acids, and polyo-who-juh-muh-what-uh-muh (though it's good that it's wikilinked).
 * It strikes me as odd that the physical and chemical properties sections are separated. Titanium has a "Characteristics" section with physical and chemical properties as subsections. What about Characteristics, with subsections physical, chemical, and isotopes?
 * "Enzymes called oxidoreductases use tungsten in a way that is similar to molybdenum by using it in a tungsten-pterin complex."--I would explain how they use it, and what they use it for, I'm sure your average reader won't understand how organisms use molybdenum. Plus, this and the sentence before it make very short paragraphs, which it's better to avoid if possible, for better flow.  Also, a citation would be good here.
 * You should check the bot generated titles and remove the commented-out notes if they're correct (in addition to adding the other needed info to the citations).
 * What does 'produce hardness at high temperatures' mean?
 * I would move 'the second highest of any known element' to the properties section, where it's already discussed.
 * The sentence beginning "The hardness and density of tungsten find uses..." is too long.
 * I like how you explain why the uses in darts and fishing lures are due to the high density. Can you do that for the musical instrument strings too?  Otherwise it's not clear why that belongs in that paragraph.
 * What is thermal expansion, and why is it useful for glass to metal seals?
 * What property makes tungsten useful for shielding?
 * Since the applications section is long, it could stand to have another image, and there are plenty of opportunities for cool ones: armaments or rings, for example. I bet you could find some nice ones on commons.
 * The "Production" section tells us "The extraction of tungsten has several stages..." but doesn't tell us what the stages are.
 * Can you explain better the difference between China having 57% of the particular minerals and 75% of the world's tungsten resources? It's not necessarily a contradiction, but it does make the reader do a double-take.
 * I would mention the density and hardness in the physical properties section. They're discussed extensively under "applications" and it would be good to have an introduction to these ideas.  I was surprised how short the physical and chemical properties sections were, but I'm not really qualified to know whether important aspects are being left out.  Is there anything you could expand on there?

Important

 * Is this a contradiction? In the lead it says it has the highest melting point of all non-alloyed metals, lower down it says "of all metals".  Can this be clarified?
 * I think it means that there are alloys with higher melting point, but no pure metals. Nergaal (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if it is well known, you should give citations for the statistics in the "Isotopes" section. The GA criteria say to provide citations at a minimum for statistics.  This can be helpful, for example, when vandals come in and change a number (us vandal fighters appreciate a quick way to check the facts).
 * I think it is better now. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More to follow in a bit  delldot on a public computer   talk  00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the applications section could use a bit of reorganizing. It has many very short paragraphs that disrupt the flow.  I think it should be organized by property, which you've already done partly.  For example, a paragraph on its hardness and which applications it useful for because of that, one on high temperature, one on density, and maybe an 'miscellaneous' paragraph.  That way, it flows better and it's clearer why tungsten, rather than some other metal, is being used (e.g., why's it used as filler for plastics?  If it's because it's dense, that sentence can go in the density paragraph).  Basically, I'd work on grouping similar concepts.  For example, maybe the thermal expansion sentence can go in or after the temperature uses paragraph.  Since the section is pretty long, you could even do subsections by property.
 * Rewrote the section and divided it in metal/element uses, alloys and compounds. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great work so far! Much more organized. What properties make it useful for the applications listed in the second paragraph? delldot   talk  09:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * how is now? Nergaal (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Typical contact holes can be as small as 65 nm." -- citation needed. At a minimum, all statistics need citations.  Same with "some tungsten steels contain as much as 18% tungsten" and the sentence beginning "There are major deposits of these minerals in China..."
 * I think I've solved the problem. Nergaal (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations still needed for the 18% and China sentences.  delldot   talk  09:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * China fact has a ref. 18% also. Nergaal (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold for now, primarily to deal with the citation needed issues, but the article is quite well done and it's very close. It should be able to be quickly fixed. The reorganization of the Applications section would be good to get dealt with too, which doesn't seem like it'll be too hard; just group the similar concepts. Definitely keep me posted and let me know if I can offer any help or clarification! delldot on a public computer  talk  01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No progress, the nom's indef blocked. Failing the article.  Anyone should feel free to fix these concerns and resubmit.  delldot on a public computer   talk  11:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking much better due to Nergaal's hard work! Any plans to work on my less important suggestions? There is still one section completely lacking in references: "Aqueous polyoxoanions".  There are also a couple paragraphs lacking references, it would be best to provide at least one per paragraph.   delldot   talk  10:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to work on some of them, but I was hoping for a quick fix:) Nergaal (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)