Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
The note that the first subsection lacks references is correct, and citations should be added. In particular, I did not understand what this means: "Vanadium has good structural strength and a low fission neutron cross section, making it useful in nuclear applications." What is a fission neutron cross section? How is a low cross section helpful for nuclear applications, and what kind of nuclear applications (military, energy, other)?
Crystal whacker (
talk)
01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the source of the Pourbaix diagram of vanadium? In other words, the image was uploaded by
User:Cadmium. Where did he get that information from? It is no different to ask this question than to ask that any other data be cited. I am notifying
User talk:Cadmium.
Crystal whacker (
talk)
02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It's not a Pourbaix diagram! It's the speciation diagram, as in Grennwood and Earnshaw, p 984. Petergans ( talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added "citation needed" tags in a number of obvious places. Some of these are statements about vanadium compounds where the source might be found in the compound's Wikipedia article. However, since Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources in the context of other Wikipedia articles, as I understand it, I am asking for citations, either to the source of the antecedent article or any other source. (I hope that's not too confusing.) Crystal whacker ( talk) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I found hewettite in List of minerals F-J (complete) and patronite in List of minerals N-R (complete) with good external references. Petergans ( talk) 11:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I copy my question and Gary's answer from our respective talk pages. In accordance with his comment here, I am delisting the article for now, with an option open to request a reconsideration from me in the near future if you improve the article in the meanwhile. I prefer this system over placing things "on hold" because I don't want to carry on indefinitely. Crystal whacker ( talk) 19:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gary. I see you do a lot of GA reviews, and I'm much newer to the process. I have a GA review open at vanadium. It's a great article, but there are four "citation needed" tags, and as I wrote there, "There are other places where I could arbitrarily put tags if I were in a contrarian mood." Could you take a look and see if it's good enough anyway or if it should be put "on hold" or failed? Thanks for whatever help you can offer. Crystal whacker ( talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Note here that after reviewing Stone's changes, I would be willing to pass the article. However, I will not do it myself because I am no longer active here, and Gary King's other concerns might still apply - I've declared a leave of absence and I can't be bothered to check. Sorry.
What to do from here, I'm not sure. Resubmitting it may be necessary, or asking for a second opinion by saying "first reviewer thinks it's okay but is no longer active" could also work. Crystal whacker ( talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I also found the referencing here to focus too much on narrow primary sources vs broader sources. --
Smokefoot (
talk)
15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are some pointers to help the article have a better chance at passing its next GAN.
Gary King ( talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
As the first reviewer is in a wiki break, would you Garry King pass it now after copy editing or is the lead still too weak? -- Stone ( talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
The note that the first subsection lacks references is correct, and citations should be added. In particular, I did not understand what this means: "Vanadium has good structural strength and a low fission neutron cross section, making it useful in nuclear applications." What is a fission neutron cross section? How is a low cross section helpful for nuclear applications, and what kind of nuclear applications (military, energy, other)?
Crystal whacker (
talk)
01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the source of the Pourbaix diagram of vanadium? In other words, the image was uploaded by
User:Cadmium. Where did he get that information from? It is no different to ask this question than to ask that any other data be cited. I am notifying
User talk:Cadmium.
Crystal whacker (
talk)
02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It's not a Pourbaix diagram! It's the speciation diagram, as in Grennwood and Earnshaw, p 984. Petergans ( talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added "citation needed" tags in a number of obvious places. Some of these are statements about vanadium compounds where the source might be found in the compound's Wikipedia article. However, since Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources in the context of other Wikipedia articles, as I understand it, I am asking for citations, either to the source of the antecedent article or any other source. (I hope that's not too confusing.) Crystal whacker ( talk) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I found hewettite in List of minerals F-J (complete) and patronite in List of minerals N-R (complete) with good external references. Petergans ( talk) 11:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I copy my question and Gary's answer from our respective talk pages. In accordance with his comment here, I am delisting the article for now, with an option open to request a reconsideration from me in the near future if you improve the article in the meanwhile. I prefer this system over placing things "on hold" because I don't want to carry on indefinitely. Crystal whacker ( talk) 19:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gary. I see you do a lot of GA reviews, and I'm much newer to the process. I have a GA review open at vanadium. It's a great article, but there are four "citation needed" tags, and as I wrote there, "There are other places where I could arbitrarily put tags if I were in a contrarian mood." Could you take a look and see if it's good enough anyway or if it should be put "on hold" or failed? Thanks for whatever help you can offer. Crystal whacker ( talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Note here that after reviewing Stone's changes, I would be willing to pass the article. However, I will not do it myself because I am no longer active here, and Gary King's other concerns might still apply - I've declared a leave of absence and I can't be bothered to check. Sorry.
What to do from here, I'm not sure. Resubmitting it may be necessary, or asking for a second opinion by saying "first reviewer thinks it's okay but is no longer active" could also work. Crystal whacker ( talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I also found the referencing here to focus too much on narrow primary sources vs broader sources. --
Smokefoot (
talk)
15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are some pointers to help the article have a better chance at passing its next GAN.
Gary King ( talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
As the first reviewer is in a wiki break, would you Garry King pass it now after copy editing or is the lead still too weak? -- Stone ( talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)