Talk:Boron/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Summary edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Quite a comprehensive, wide-ranging, article on Boron.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. 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:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    This is quite a comprehensive article with a wide-ranging scope, so I'm awarding GA-status. I think that there is scope for slightly expanding the article and I discuss these below; however their lack is not sufficient to cause me to withhold GA-status nor for putting the WP:GAN On Hold - after all GAs can nearly "always" be improved.

However, the pdf version of reference 70 is flagged as a {deadlink}: the link to the pdf file should be either corrected or removed.

Possible improvements:

  • There is no mention of boron hydrides; however diborane is mentioned, but not as a hydride.
  • There is no mention of organoboron compounds; however the use of Triethylborane is mentioned, but not as an organoboron compound.
  • No mention of Tourmaline mineral group.

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply