The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article looks like it's in reasonably good shape, though at a glance I do see a few things worth adressing. I will take a closer look and write up a more detailed review. 〈
Forbes72 |
Talk 〉 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for taking up the review. I am going to be quite busy for the next few weeks, so I might not respond swiftly to queries. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
No problem. Just ping me when you have time to go through the article. 〈
Forbes72 |
Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
What looks good:
lots of well-formatted citations to reliable sources, placed suitably in-line with the text.
Nice pictures of the elements/their discoverers
Clear description of some of the main physical/chemical properties
Detailed discussion of some things to improve:
Lead:
Naming of the group is a little over-emphasized here (2nd paragraph could be moved). This may be worth including in the body of the article, but the history of the name of the group is a bit too detailed for the lead.
Lead is a bit too technical for a general audience, "d-block", "transition metal", "oxidation state", "electropositive", "coordination chemistry", "lanthanide contraction" (
WP:EXPLAINLEAD) This is useful information to include somewhere in the article, but try to use especially simple terminology in the lead so people without a scientific background aren't totally lost.
I agree that “coordination chemistry”, “lanthanide contraction” and “electropositive” might seem a bit technical, but I think the others are fine. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
section has some good info, but is overweighted with discussion of dubnium (more than half the prose).
Made some amendments, although majority of the history of the elements of this group is on dubnium. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Also there is a very heavy focus on the history of the names of the elements, it would be good to include some history of their properties or how they are used. (e.g. when were
tantalum capacitors/
niobium capacitors first used?, how long have these elements been used as
microalloys in steel? How about the history of
coltan mining? Maybe a mention of the use in
Yttrium orthovanadate/laser mediums?) You could add these to applications as appropriate.
The organization of this section is a bit confusing. I would think a natural organization might be ore production => purification => isolation of the element => ferrovanadium/ferroniobium, to keep things in a logical order.
The problem with this is that this is an overview article about many elements. I think that it would make more sense if we keep it to its constituent elements. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The amount of mine production info for niobium is a little overdetailed for such a broad overview article. Maybe the top three producers, and just link to niobium page for more info.
Abbreviations: I would remove LBL/OSHA/NIOSH/REL as unnecessary
WP:JARGON, since they are introduced but never actually used, the wikilinks already in place should be enough.
the last four sections of the article could use a picture or two.
Added a picture for applications and biological occurrences, wasn’t able to add pictures to occurrence and toxicity and precautions. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Ekeberg/Bohr/Han pictures are public domain in Sweden and presumably in the USA, but need to be tagged as public domain in the USA.
Coverage goes into a bit too much detail on the names of the elements. Could be summarized more shortly and leave the detailed coverage to the individual articles.
HOLD. The article's sourcing is good, there is some issues with organization and the relative weight of coverage, the article is a bit too technical, and there are a few minor things to fix. There's substantial useful information here, but it needs some tweaks to get to GA status. 〈
Forbes72 |
Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I will be away over the next few days, so I might not be on Wikipedia. Is it ok if you extend the hold time? 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, I have added some comments. Check them out! 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Forbes72: I have addressed all of the issues that I can. Is it OK if you go through my comments as soon as possible? 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 12:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article looks like it's in reasonably good shape, though at a glance I do see a few things worth adressing. I will take a closer look and write up a more detailed review. 〈
Forbes72 |
Talk 〉 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for taking up the review. I am going to be quite busy for the next few weeks, so I might not respond swiftly to queries. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
No problem. Just ping me when you have time to go through the article. 〈
Forbes72 |
Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
What looks good:
lots of well-formatted citations to reliable sources, placed suitably in-line with the text.
Nice pictures of the elements/their discoverers
Clear description of some of the main physical/chemical properties
Detailed discussion of some things to improve:
Lead:
Naming of the group is a little over-emphasized here (2nd paragraph could be moved). This may be worth including in the body of the article, but the history of the name of the group is a bit too detailed for the lead.
Lead is a bit too technical for a general audience, "d-block", "transition metal", "oxidation state", "electropositive", "coordination chemistry", "lanthanide contraction" (
WP:EXPLAINLEAD) This is useful information to include somewhere in the article, but try to use especially simple terminology in the lead so people without a scientific background aren't totally lost.
I agree that “coordination chemistry”, “lanthanide contraction” and “electropositive” might seem a bit technical, but I think the others are fine. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
section has some good info, but is overweighted with discussion of dubnium (more than half the prose).
Made some amendments, although majority of the history of the elements of this group is on dubnium. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Also there is a very heavy focus on the history of the names of the elements, it would be good to include some history of their properties or how they are used. (e.g. when were
tantalum capacitors/
niobium capacitors first used?, how long have these elements been used as
microalloys in steel? How about the history of
coltan mining? Maybe a mention of the use in
Yttrium orthovanadate/laser mediums?) You could add these to applications as appropriate.
The organization of this section is a bit confusing. I would think a natural organization might be ore production => purification => isolation of the element => ferrovanadium/ferroniobium, to keep things in a logical order.
The problem with this is that this is an overview article about many elements. I think that it would make more sense if we keep it to its constituent elements. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The amount of mine production info for niobium is a little overdetailed for such a broad overview article. Maybe the top three producers, and just link to niobium page for more info.
Abbreviations: I would remove LBL/OSHA/NIOSH/REL as unnecessary
WP:JARGON, since they are introduced but never actually used, the wikilinks already in place should be enough.
the last four sections of the article could use a picture or two.
Added a picture for applications and biological occurrences, wasn’t able to add pictures to occurrence and toxicity and precautions. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Ekeberg/Bohr/Han pictures are public domain in Sweden and presumably in the USA, but need to be tagged as public domain in the USA.
Coverage goes into a bit too much detail on the names of the elements. Could be summarized more shortly and leave the detailed coverage to the individual articles.
HOLD. The article's sourcing is good, there is some issues with organization and the relative weight of coverage, the article is a bit too technical, and there are a few minor things to fix. There's substantial useful information here, but it needs some tweaks to get to GA status. 〈
Forbes72 |
Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I will be away over the next few days, so I might not be on Wikipedia. Is it ok if you extend the hold time? 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, I have added some comments. Check them out! 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Forbes72: I have addressed all of the issues that I can. Is it OK if you go through my comments as soon as possible? 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 12:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.