Talk:Thallium/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: TFOWRpropaganda 11:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the following from Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What is a good article? - I'll add comments as I work through the GA review. TFOWRpropaganda 14:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    In general, spelling (U.S.) is correct and grammar looks good. A few additional comments:
    Thallium#Isotopes: the half-life of 204Tl is stated twice - I'd suggest the second time is redundant.
    Removed the one in the brackets.--Stone (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thallium#Historic uses: "Since 1975, this use in the United States and many other countries is prohibited due to safety concerns" - I'm not sure the comma is necessary, but this may be an WP:ENGVAR issue (I'm used to non-U.S. English). I'd like to see some inidication why 1975 is important - what happened in 1975? - or the year removed.
    Nice catch! The President issued Executive Order 11643 regulated the use as as poison on the 8 February 1972 USGS Yearbook 1972. I will change it accordingly.--Stone (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY I don't regard the above comments as "show stoppers", and consider the GA criteria for "Well written (a)" has been passed.
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
    checkY "Well written (b)" has been passed.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    checkY Inline citations used extensively, with references listed in the "References" section.
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    checkY Footnotes are used exclusively (no parenthetical citations).
    (c) it contains no original research.
    checkY No evidence of WP:OR.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    checkY I compared the topics covered by the article with topics at Mercury (element) and Lead. Coverage is similar, and very satisfactory.
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    checkY Article stays focussed, and uses "Main article" and "See also" links where appropriate.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. checkY It's probably difficult to slip bias into an article about a chemical element! I considered the history section in some detail, and consider that it covered the discovery of thallium (by two separate scientists) fairly.
    It is very common to have a problem with POV pushing in the right articles, for example germanium and its use as dietary supplement or the arsenic in Bangladesh groundwater or the selenium effect against cancer or the pollonium poisoning of Litvinenko or the super bicycles made of scandium alloy. So care has to be taken!--Stone (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Occurrence and production" section mentions the United States Geological Survey, and the "Thallium pollution" section mentions the US EPA. I'd like to see more international sources, but I wouldn't personally consider placing a Template:Globalize/North America tag on the article, nor do I feel that this (minor) concern affects the article.
    As the US have limited resources and have been for a very long time the most resource hungry country they provide a fairly well global perspective on most raw materials by the USGS Yearbook and Commodity summary. For the pollution you only have a handful possibilities and most US organizations have a better web access and therefore I use them. The EU should have something on thallium to and the british Geological Survey also gives good numbers for the world wide concurrence.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
    checkY Article history appears stable. Nothing on talk page to indicate any ongoing content disputes, etc.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    checkY Four images, all from commons. I'll defer to commons' editors here, except to note that the images have, by and large, either been on commons for several years or, in the case of the most recent been permitted and verified via OTRS.
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
    checkY Images are relevant to the topic. All have captions (except for the "Skull and crossbones", which is clearly used to indicate toxicity, hence no caption required).

Response to Comments[edit]

Thanks for starting the review! I will try to adress all comments soon!--Stone (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many isotopes listed in the infobox. 18.111.7.117 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. For example with iron there are more instable ones (4) but also more stable ones (3) making overall 7 isotopes in the list . There are three in numbers 3 isotopes listed in the thallium article. This is neither to few nor too many, this is exactly the right number. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, ..... ;-) --Stone (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chemist, so can't comment on the IP's "too many isotopes" comment - sorry! There's been enough rabbiting on from me, anyway... TFOWRidle vapourings 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thallium/GA1&oldid=367224708"