Talk:Crystallographic database/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, and should have a full review up within two hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • External links should all go in the external links section, not in-line in the main text (as they are in the "Overview" and "Morphology and physical properties" sections.
   • When you link to the web version of an article, please only link the title of the article, and not the authors, journal title, etc. This makes it easier to read and to see what the reference actually is.
   • In-line citations should always come after punctuation, not before, and there should be no spaces between sequential citations.
   • I have not fully reviewed the prose for this article, only listed issues that I saw in a quick glance through. There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done in sourcing this article, and when that is completed (or near completion) I will look through the prose. The one thing I did notice is that it is rather...dry. However, I'm not sure that it is possible to avoid this, considering the topic of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • My main concern in this article is that it does not have enough inline citations. There are entire sections (including the "Search" and "Crystal phase identification" sections, among others) that have no citations at all, and other sections where several paragraphs are without citations. This is particularly important where you give exact dates and numbers, or anywhere that has information that could be controversial or logically questioned.

I am not exactly 100% sure which places you are talking about. Could you place {{fact}} tags? It should be easier to identify the problematic places. Nergaal (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have placed fact tags in the article. Over half of the article has no references...this is what is causing the problem. If there was just sentence here and there that was unreferenced, I'd just list them here, go on to a full review of the prose, and the article could be tuned up in a matter of hours. This article, though, is seriously under-referenced. How do I know that the main contributor (which isn't you, Nergaal, which worries me slightly) isn't just blowing smoke (or crystals, as the case may be *grin*)?

Weird... at a quick glance the article seemed good enough to be listed as a GA and I nominated it. But it seems it will require waay more work than I've anticipated... and I don't have the time to fix all the 35 citation tempaltes... Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Are there really no other pictures/graphs/images of any sort for this article? It really seems like a wall of text. If not, than oh well, and it's not a huge deal for GA, but it would be nice.
   • Sources for the image should be listed on the image page, not in the caption.

I did not mean to move the references into the article's references. I would like you to move them onto the image's page.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article has some major issues to overcome regarding its sourcing. I am putting the article on hold for seven days in order to allow the authors to deal with the concerns I have detailed above. If the authors need more time, I can be contacted here on this page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page, and if I see that work is being done on the article, I will extend the hold for a reasonable amount of time. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am failing this GA nomination due to a lack of response on the issues above. When the issues are resolved, the article may be renominated for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)