Talk:Thulium/GA1
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by TL The Legend in topic GA Review
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: King jakob c 2 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- For criterion 1B: The lead section is far too short for an article of this length. I'd recommend that it be about twice as long, maybe.
- For criterion 2B: What is the evidence that chemicool.com and whatever this is are reliable? (All the other sources look reliable).
- For criterion 3A: The article is slightly on the short side (especially the occurrence, production, and biological role sections). However, this is not an FA nomination and I understand that the rare earth elements are often rather obscure, so I won't hold back the nomination for this.
- For criterion 6A: I am a bit curious as to why we have an image with a non-commercial license on the article, but it's also a Featured Picture, so I'm probably missing something.
That's all. Thank you for nominating. King Jakob C2 16:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The GA review has now been passed. Thanks for all your work on it. King Jakob C2 11:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]- Well written
- The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Better now? Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Verifiable with no original research
- It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
- It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
- Chemicool is ref'd by reliable sources. When I have time I will check which of those original sources can fit in better. The second one is more sketchy. I will try to find the original source behind this info, as it certainly looks like legitimate info.
Doing... Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's been removed now. King Jakob C2 11:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Chemicool is ref'd by reliable sources. When I have time I will check which of those original sources can fit in better. The second one is more sketchy. I will try to find the original source behind this info, as it certainly looks like legitimate info.
- It contains no original research.
- It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
- Broad in its coverage
- It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- Tm doesn't have nearly as much to talk about as Yb, eh? :-) Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- (I'm actually serious) Double sharp (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Tm doesn't have nearly as much to talk about as Yb, eh? :-) Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail .
- I'm not so sure about this now. I read the first paragraph and I'm already confused. TL The Legend (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- Neutral
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images
- Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
- Not a problem per multi-licensing. Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
Incidentally, I'm certainly not going to sillily follow the lede here and edit the Er and Ho articles' ledes to call them the preantepenultimate and propreantepenultimate lanthanides! Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Or call Dy the suprapropreantepenultimate lanthanide. Or Tb the ultrasuprapropreantepenultimate lanthanide! TL The Legend (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)