GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to be reviewing the article but it will take some time though. I'll start with the lead and go down as I review. Geo7777 ( talk) 02:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Lead the lead is pretty good, basically complying with the MoS, but it would be better if it included something about the chemical properties of tin, as it has information about the physical properties.
Characteristics
physical properties
great coverage, clarity and size. Fine for GA.
chemical properties
OK, but if you could add just a little more information it would be great. You could try expanding on the notions or mabye adding on wether the oxide forms a protective covering and a less reactive surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo7777 ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'll continue from where I left off.
isotopes
good.
etymology
just fine, reasonable coverage on tin's etymology.
History
ancient times
OK.
modern times
Here there is a slight problem. In the second paragraph, it talks about the pricing and how it changed. Don't you think it should be placed under a different section? Yes, it is a big difference, but I don't think it should be under the history section, and much less in the same paragraph with the international tin committee. Likewise, in the third paragraph, it discusses how other materials are called tin improperly. That dosen't all really fit under history, mabye put it into a different section/subsection? I don't mean all of it though, the first few lines are fine.
Compounds and chemistry
inorganic compounds
It is very good, but it is in need of refs. In the whole section, there is only one ref, so there is a need. The refs for the halide or oxide compounds are probably easy as they are well known so please try. And also, in the first line after the "see also Category: tin compounds" did you mean to put normal text on the same line or was it a mistake?
-- Stone ( talk) 14:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
hydrides
good, but if you could put the formula for tributyltin hydride that would be great for people who are not good or are a novice in chmistry.
organotin compounds
Very good.
That's all for now. :)-- Geo7777 ( talk) 03:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The previous reviewer has been inactive for a long time, so I'm overtaking it just to finish it. I'll follow the used scheme, after which will check against every criterion.
Occurrence
Production
Applications
Precautions
6
Enough for now. Will add more later with my eyes not so tired.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1
3
Enough for this time.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
An hour ago, I looked again and again and realized I have nothing to add; on hold.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to be reviewing the article but it will take some time though. I'll start with the lead and go down as I review. Geo7777 ( talk) 02:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Lead the lead is pretty good, basically complying with the MoS, but it would be better if it included something about the chemical properties of tin, as it has information about the physical properties.
Characteristics
physical properties
great coverage, clarity and size. Fine for GA.
chemical properties
OK, but if you could add just a little more information it would be great. You could try expanding on the notions or mabye adding on wether the oxide forms a protective covering and a less reactive surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo7777 ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'll continue from where I left off.
isotopes
good.
etymology
just fine, reasonable coverage on tin's etymology.
History
ancient times
OK.
modern times
Here there is a slight problem. In the second paragraph, it talks about the pricing and how it changed. Don't you think it should be placed under a different section? Yes, it is a big difference, but I don't think it should be under the history section, and much less in the same paragraph with the international tin committee. Likewise, in the third paragraph, it discusses how other materials are called tin improperly. That dosen't all really fit under history, mabye put it into a different section/subsection? I don't mean all of it though, the first few lines are fine.
Compounds and chemistry
inorganic compounds
It is very good, but it is in need of refs. In the whole section, there is only one ref, so there is a need. The refs for the halide or oxide compounds are probably easy as they are well known so please try. And also, in the first line after the "see also Category: tin compounds" did you mean to put normal text on the same line or was it a mistake?
-- Stone ( talk) 14:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
hydrides
good, but if you could put the formula for tributyltin hydride that would be great for people who are not good or are a novice in chmistry.
organotin compounds
Very good.
That's all for now. :)-- Geo7777 ( talk) 03:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The previous reviewer has been inactive for a long time, so I'm overtaking it just to finish it. I'll follow the used scheme, after which will check against every criterion.
Occurrence
Production
Applications
Precautions
6
Enough for now. Will add more later with my eyes not so tired.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1
3
Enough for this time.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
An hour ago, I looked again and again and realized I have nothing to add; on hold.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)