Wikipedia:Peer review/Timeline of chemical elements discoveries/archive1

List of chemical elements by their discovery

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it isn't very far from a FL-class. What do you think?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice list. Obviously took a lot of work.  You might consider beefing up the entry paragraph.  Sometimes a list is just a list, but in this case, it seems to be more.  This list covers the the civilization of man-kind, and, I think, needs a discussion of how these discoveries are linked to the development of modern life.WVhybrid (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be a bit more precise (examples)? Nergaal (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Implications of the identification copper and iron on pre-historic civilization would be one key area. And the impact of organic chemistry discoveries associated with Lavoisier on medicine and industry could merit mention.  WVhybrid (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

I suggest:


 * bolding the title in the lead, I would suggest presented here in chronological order
 * Expand the lead with some more context
 * Is both the image of the table and the map of the table necessary? They both have the same information...
 * More notes for each element? And citations for each one?
 * Explain 'Z' as the atomic number somewhere in the lead.
 * Strontium and Yttrium have something wrong with their notes sections.
 * As do a load in the 19th century section and 20th century sections, is there a reason for this?
 * Typo in the notes section for Unbibium, need a space between : and A.
 * Some of the URL references don't have retrieval dates.

All in all, a very comprehensive article. SGGH speak! 10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
 * My first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)