Talk:Nonmetal/GA1

GA Review

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[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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
Overall:
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)[reply]

I have been doing some minor copyediting; feel free to undo any and all of my edits.

Adabow 07:22, 19 August 2013 ([1] sign added. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

~~"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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
  - User:Sandbh stepped in; looks great now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Excellently referenced, with a large number of sources. Inline citations where appropriate. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done Sandbh (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No recent edit warring or talk page disputes. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some fantastic images here, and there are used and captioned well. All are free. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Otherwise, this is an excellent article. I will place the review on hold for now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Timely and incisive review. Much appreciated. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]