Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a243ff453f1722ce

Jump to content

Talk:Tellurium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Femke (alt) in topic Good article reassessment
Good articleTellurium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2010Good article nomineeListed
February 10, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tellurium/CommentsTalk:Tellurium/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*The applications section starts with semiconductor use, although later the major application is mentioned: Steel, copper and lead alloys. This has to be changed.--Stone (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Toxicity

[edit]

In the article it is mentioned that tellurium is mildly toxic. But isn't it moderately toxic? Exe csrss (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Kept. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article is a GA from 2010. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone ahead and added some {{Citation needed}} tags. 141Pr 16:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.