Wikipedia:Peer review/Copper/archive2

Copper
This peer review discussion has been closed. Copper 2. (Haha, the previous one was empty.) The previous review shall now serve as a "backbone" for other peer reviews. As I said in the previous one: Don't get infamous or deitified when posting comments! F R E Y W A  16:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review
 * M-S pointed out 2 major problems in the copper article, and I fixed them.
 * This peer review is to point out minor problems and fix them.
 * Any help is appreciated.

Comments of Stone

 * Organocopper chemistry should be improved Reactions of organocopper reagents is not linked although it gives a good impression what copper reagents can do. Is Gilman and acetylides is all what is worth to mention? --Stone (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bioleaching might be a word which should be mentioned in the productions section.The bioleaching of sulphide minerals with emphasis on copper sulphides--A review might be a good ref for this.--Stone (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The FA zinc does not give the occurrence in biological systems in the Occurrence section, but deals with this occurrence in the Biological role section. I like this better, but there might be a reason to split the topic.--Stone (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Aluminum wire should be linked in the electricity section.--Stone (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Chemical characteristics does not mention the clearly the two main oxidation states, this is moved to the compounds where I think it is less intuitive to search for it.--Stone (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * biological electron transport, the electrical "wiring" of a cell might not be the best wording. The section needs a ref very urgent.--Stone (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Linking foreign countries in the Production section and the consistent use of US and USA might help. Not everybody knows New Mexico.--Stone (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * might give a clue of market manipulations of the copper price.--Stone (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you understand me? I have no knowledge of economics. F R E  Y W A  02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand you. The lack of knowledge of economics on your side is not a problem. There might be others to help you. If this article contains only things you an I know than that article is for sure only C-Class, because it misses some topics. I will have a look on the economics topic when I have more time.--Stone (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  18:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cu2S (chalcocite) + pine oil → CuS2 I do not get this equation. The problem for me is that this is not the key point of froth flotation.--Stone (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Smokefoot fixed it already by completely rewriting the section. F R E  Y W A  02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Copper is 100% recyclable Is this fact only true for copper? Is aluminium any different? --Stone (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence is there, you misinterpreted your own query. F R E  Y W A  14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant: I have not the slightest clue why copper is so more recyclable than other materials. There must be a sentence to describe that fact.--Stone (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the Bonus Round. F R E  Y W A  21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments of Materialscientist
I would go through the reference list, eliminate/complete dubious refs, then start providing missing refs to the facts in the article. Also, some bulleted lists could be rewritten into prose. Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments of Nergaal
Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isotopes section is way too short
 * F R E Y W A  02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * more needs to be added about the methods - what are the chemical processes, in detail?
 * F R E Y W A  02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * many sections have paragraphs without any references
 * ❌ Sorry, I have no reliable references in my hands. Get a user with Credo Reference. F R E  Y W A  02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try using Google Scholar. Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F R E Y W A  07:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * history is a bit thin on the modern side
 * F R E Y W A  07:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * precautions is a bit short
 * F R E Y W A  07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is starting to look quite well. However, it is still really thin of referencing. I have added fact tags at the places where it still needs refs. Once those are fixed this could be getting close for GA. Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've realised that this is not a job for one. Everyone, get your reference-finding instincts ready, because we are about to starve the page of the tags.  F R E  Y W A  06:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments of RJHall
Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The links are in need of some work. There is overlinking of obvious terms, such as heat, pipe, water, moss, mildew, bacteria, ships, &c. The first use of a term is not always where a link appears, such as for Roman and iron. I'm also finding repeated linking, such as four links to iron, and the first use of the term is not always where the link is found.
 * F R E Y W A  01:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I count 39 paragraphs that begin with "Copper". Please try to change it up so this doesn't stand out as much. I think no more than one paragraph per section would be good.
 * F R E Y W A  12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are too many single-sentence paragraphs.
 * F R E Y W A  01:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please include some information on the elemental abundance of copper and discuss the formation via nucleosynthesis.
 * F R E Y W A  12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)