Biological aspects of fluorine was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 28, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Fluorine, due to size or style considerations. |
The article text was created by cut and paste from the " Fluorine" article of corresponding history time. TCO ( talk) 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
(all low priority)
1. Research agrichemicals and see if it makes sense to have a separate section for 1080 and perhaps NaF poisons as opposed to designed chemicals like Trifluralin.
2. Read up and hone the org and friendliness of the pharma section.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article or it's parent ( fluorine). I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. LT910001 ( talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is for the most part clear and concise. Concerns noted below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lede is too brief. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Several unsourced areas; numerous citations are links to sources which are not provided in the bibliography.
| |
2b. 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). | Yes | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage:
Yes | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
Yes | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Requires improvement (see above criteria) |
This is a fairly well-written article and I apologise to the nominee for having to wait one-and-a-half months. I feel the lede does not do a good job of summarising the article, and that the structure is a little arbitrary. Would you consider organising the article according to the headings 'Biological', 'Medical' (subheadings imaging, pharmaceutical, dental, blood research), 'Agricultural' (subheadings insecticide,agrichemicals), 'Archeological'. Such a structure would make this article much easier to read by helping give some context to each of the subheadings. I await your response; kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Am I addressing the nominee or a second reviewer? LT910001 ( talk) 03:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the first commenter that this article does suffer from ambiguous scope and might benefit from a rename to "Biological uses of fluorine" or "Biological applications of fluorine" to help define what content is contained within here. However, neither this nor how this article relates to the parent article is one of the WP:GARC. I'll await changes to the lede and structure of the article before I continue the review. I have also checked images and there are no copyright problems, so I have updated the criteria accordingly. LT910001 ( talk) 10:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The article looks much better now. I have updated the GA table accordingly. Things that are now preventing promotion are:
The following sections need sources:
This sentence is off-topic and I suggest remove: "Prior to 1980s, antidepressants altered ... family of broad-spectrum antibiotics.[24]" Other:
Good review, thanks. It was fun being tongue in cheek and writing something non-Wikibland in lead to shock the squares. I can't commit to fixing all the observations (still really unsure the value of this article as anything other than a spinout from main article for length...theme is not that tight.) For the agrichem, there was some stuff that was a bit off from R8r (no offense, he tried) that I rewrote better now in parent article. For the refs, I think they all were there and can be dug out of old versions and the like, but I can't commit to that sort of detail work. Really hurts me head to concentrate on refs, with the Wikicode and such. In MS Word and writing a document that I control, I don't seem to have this issue of refs wandering around.
The kid who nominated it is a nice fellow but he has not done any work on the article and just threw it into the queue unready. 71.127.137.171 ( talk) 14:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
1. Rewrite the lead...maybe even something kind of a little less drab (more magazine style writing) that discusses the double-edged sword aspect of fluorine (poison versus Prozac). And just face up to the controversy aspect...actually makes the lead have a little hookiness.
2. Go to parent article and see what additions if any need to propogate to child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.87.91 ( talk) 23:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I think these effects are more chemical/physical rather than biological. Focus is an aspect of article that has been worked on. I cut these as there are good alternate articles for ozone depletion and the section is off topic. 71.127.137.171 ( talk) 05:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Biological aspects of fluorine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Biological aspects of fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
All those harv [author year] citations are not resolved as actual bibliographic entries. This problem dates back to this edit from 2013(!). I wonder if chunks of content and refs were cut'n'pasted from some other article (license violation)? If that source article could be found, maybe it has those refs expanded. I don't have time to look at the moment, but it's a major problem for now. DMacks ( talk) 02:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Biological aspects of fluorine was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 28, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Fluorine, due to size or style considerations. |
The article text was created by cut and paste from the " Fluorine" article of corresponding history time. TCO ( talk) 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
(all low priority)
1. Research agrichemicals and see if it makes sense to have a separate section for 1080 and perhaps NaF poisons as opposed to designed chemicals like Trifluralin.
2. Read up and hone the org and friendliness of the pharma section.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article or it's parent ( fluorine). I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. LT910001 ( talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is for the most part clear and concise. Concerns noted below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lede is too brief. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Several unsourced areas; numerous citations are links to sources which are not provided in the bibliography.
| |
2b. 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). | Yes | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage:
Yes | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
images,
video, or
audio:
Yes | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Requires improvement (see above criteria) |
This is a fairly well-written article and I apologise to the nominee for having to wait one-and-a-half months. I feel the lede does not do a good job of summarising the article, and that the structure is a little arbitrary. Would you consider organising the article according to the headings 'Biological', 'Medical' (subheadings imaging, pharmaceutical, dental, blood research), 'Agricultural' (subheadings insecticide,agrichemicals), 'Archeological'. Such a structure would make this article much easier to read by helping give some context to each of the subheadings. I await your response; kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Am I addressing the nominee or a second reviewer? LT910001 ( talk) 03:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the first commenter that this article does suffer from ambiguous scope and might benefit from a rename to "Biological uses of fluorine" or "Biological applications of fluorine" to help define what content is contained within here. However, neither this nor how this article relates to the parent article is one of the WP:GARC. I'll await changes to the lede and structure of the article before I continue the review. I have also checked images and there are no copyright problems, so I have updated the criteria accordingly. LT910001 ( talk) 10:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The article looks much better now. I have updated the GA table accordingly. Things that are now preventing promotion are:
The following sections need sources:
This sentence is off-topic and I suggest remove: "Prior to 1980s, antidepressants altered ... family of broad-spectrum antibiotics.[24]" Other:
Good review, thanks. It was fun being tongue in cheek and writing something non-Wikibland in lead to shock the squares. I can't commit to fixing all the observations (still really unsure the value of this article as anything other than a spinout from main article for length...theme is not that tight.) For the agrichem, there was some stuff that was a bit off from R8r (no offense, he tried) that I rewrote better now in parent article. For the refs, I think they all were there and can be dug out of old versions and the like, but I can't commit to that sort of detail work. Really hurts me head to concentrate on refs, with the Wikicode and such. In MS Word and writing a document that I control, I don't seem to have this issue of refs wandering around.
The kid who nominated it is a nice fellow but he has not done any work on the article and just threw it into the queue unready. 71.127.137.171 ( talk) 14:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
1. Rewrite the lead...maybe even something kind of a little less drab (more magazine style writing) that discusses the double-edged sword aspect of fluorine (poison versus Prozac). And just face up to the controversy aspect...actually makes the lead have a little hookiness.
2. Go to parent article and see what additions if any need to propogate to child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.87.91 ( talk) 23:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I think these effects are more chemical/physical rather than biological. Focus is an aspect of article that has been worked on. I cut these as there are good alternate articles for ozone depletion and the section is off topic. 71.127.137.171 ( talk) 05:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Biological aspects of fluorine. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Biological aspects of fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
All those harv [author year] citations are not resolved as actual bibliographic entries. This problem dates back to this edit from 2013(!). I wonder if chunks of content and refs were cut'n'pasted from some other article (license violation)? If that source article could be found, maybe it has those refs expanded. I don't have time to look at the moment, but it's a major problem for now. DMacks ( talk) 02:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)