Talk:Nonmetal/GA1
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- superb use of images and diagrams
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I will review this article over the next few days. I have gone over the images; all are free and used well. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Prose/MoS quibbles
- I have been doing some minor copyediting; feel free to undo any and all of my edits.
"Chemically, the nonmetals have relatively high ionisation energy and high electronegativity;" - should ionisation energy and electronegativity be pluralised?
Not done Since it's referring to ionisation energy and electronegativity values, I don't think it needs to be pluralized. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The overview part of the "Categories" section could do with some more liberal linking- Not done I looked through it. I tried. I really tried. But I really don't see any terms there that aren't already linked elsewhere (well, except metallic bonding, which I have now linked). Could you point me to some terms there that you would like to see linked? Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- User:Sandbh stepped in; looks great now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is the boldfacing of 'noble gas' warranted? Done
- "all known in polymeric forms" is ambiguous: it could mean "all potential oxides are known, and are in polymeric forms" or "all known oxides are in polymeric forms" Done Sandbh (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- In 'Abundance and extraction', several elements are mentioned which are not previously mentioned, and should therefore be linked. Done
These are all minor nitpicks; nothing here fails to meet the first criterion. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Referencing
- Excellently referenced, with a large number of sources. Inline citations where appropriate. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Breadth
- I think that in the 'Polyatomic nonmetals' section the vast discipline of organic chemistry should be mentioned in a sentence. Perhaps after the sentence describing the tendency for polyatomic nonmetals to catenate? Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality
Stability
Media
- There are some fantastic images here, and there are used and captioned well. All are free. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Overall
I would like to see a mention of organic chemistry, as it is fundamental to the chemistry of carbon.
- A shrewd and fundamental (to life as we know it) observation. Will do. Done Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, this is an excellent article. I will place the review on hold for now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that Sandbh has added this, I will pass the article. Great work and well done to everyone involved; keep it up! Adabow (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)