Talk:Protactinium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FREYWA 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I have nominated copper for GA. Look here! FREYWA 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

No uses for protactinium? Fine.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Inconsistent mention of coordination (7-fold coordinated vs. coordination 7 in the halides section). Several sentences (like the last one of the applications section) are incoherent in their structure (makes people frustrated) and need to be fixed.

Tweaked. It would be easier if you posted awkward sentences, or just go ahead and fix the wording as you read. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Where are the sources for the Isotopes section?

Added. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. 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:

   This is OK but where is the caption for the picture in the halides section?

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Wow, this is the fastest GA review I have ever had. Good job, Lanthanon.

Comments

Who is "Lanthanon"? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You. FREYWA 08:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)