Copper

Previous peer review

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Copper 2. (Haha, the previous one was empty.) The previous review shall now serve as a "backbone" for other peer reviews. As I said in the previous one:

• M-S pointed out 2 major problems in the copper article, and I fixed them.
• This peer review is to point out minor problems and fix them.
• Any help is appreciated.

Don't get infamous or deitified when posting comments! FRE YWA 16:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments of Stone

This article may lack focus or may be about more than one topic. Please help improve this article, possibly by splitting the article and/or by introducing a disambiguation page, or discuss this issue on the talk page.

This article has formulas that need descriptions. Please help clarify variables, symbols and constants.

This article is in list format but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this article, if appropriate. Editing help is available.

This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text.

• Organocopper chemistry should be improved Reactions of organocopper reagents is not linked although it gives a good impression what copper reagents can do. Is Gilman and acetylides is all what is worth to mention? -- Stone ( talk) 20:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done FRE YWA 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Bioleaching might be a word which should be mentioned in the productions section. The bioleaching of sulphide minerals with emphasis on copper sulphides--A review might be a good ref for this.-- Stone ( talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done FRE YWA 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• The FA zinc does not give the occurrence in biological systems in the Occurrence section , but deals with this occurrence in the Biological role section. I like this better, but there might be a reason to split the topic.-- Stone ( talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done FRE YWA 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• The article Aluminum wire should be linked in the electricity section.-- Stone ( talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done FRE YWA 02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• The Chemical characteristics does not mention the clearly the two main oxidation states, this is moved to the compounds where I think it is less intuitive to search for it.-- Stone ( talk) 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done FRE YWA 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• biological electron transport, the electrical "wiring" of a cell might not be the best wording. The section needs a ref very urgent.-- Stone ( talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done FRE YWA 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Linking foreign countries in the Production section and the consistent use of US and USA might help. Not everybody knows New Mexico.-- Stone ( talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done FRE YWA 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• [1] [2] might give a clue of market manipulations of the copper price.-- Stone ( talk) 21:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Can you understand me? I have no knowledge of economics. FRE YWA 02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I can understand you. The lack of knowledge of economics on your side is not a problem. There might be others to help you. If this article contains only things you an I know than that article is for sure only C-Class, because it misses some topics. I will have a look on the economics topic when I have more time.-- Stone ( talk) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
      •  Done FRE YWA 18:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Cu2S (chalcocite) + pine oil → CuS2 I do not get this equation. The problem for me is that this is not the key point of froth flotation.-- Stone ( talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done Smokefoot fixed it already by completely rewriting the section. FRE YWA 02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Copper is 100% recyclable Is this fact only true for copper? Is aluminium any different? -- Stone ( talk) 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Done The sentence is there, you misinterpreted your own query. FRE YWA 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I meant: I have not the slightest clue why copper is so more recyclable than other materials. There must be a sentence to describe that fact.-- Stone ( talk) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
      •  Doing... the Bonus Round. FRE YWA 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments of Materialscientist

This Wikipedia page needs to be updated. Please help update this Wikipedia page to reflect recent events or newly available information.

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. Please help improve this article and add independent sources.

This article contains statements that are anachronistic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

I would go through the reference list, eliminate/complete dubious refs, then start providing missing refs to the facts in the article. Also, some bulleted lists could be rewritten into prose. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments of Nergaal

This article contains too many pictures for its overall length. Please improve this article by removing indiscriminate collections of images or adjusting images that are sandwiching text in accordance with the Manual of Style on use of images. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article may have misleading content. Please help clarify the content.

• Isotopes section is way too short
  •  Done FRE YWA 02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• more needs to be added about the methods - what are the chemical processes, in detail?
  •  Done FRE YWA 02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• many sections have paragraphs without any references
  • ✗ Not done Sorry, I have no reliable references in my hands. Get a user with Credo Reference. FRE YWA 02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Try using Google Scholar. Nergaal ( talk) 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply
      •  Done FRE YWA 07:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• history is a bit thin on the modern side
  •  Done FRE YWA 07:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• precautions is a bit short
  •  Done FRE YWA 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Nergaal ( talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• It is starting to look quite well. However, it is still really thin of referencing. I have added fact tags at the places where it still needs refs. Once those are fixed this could be getting close for GA. Nergaal ( talk) 04:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Doing... I've realised that this is not a job for one. Everyone, get your reference-finding instincts ready, because we are about to starve the page of the ^{citation needed} tags. FRE YWA 06:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments of RJHall

This article contains a list of miscellaneous information. Please relocate any relevant information into other sections or articles.

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article is written like an obituary. Wikipedia is not a memorial site; please help improve the article to make it more encyclopedic.

• The links are in need of some work. There is overlinking of obvious terms, such as heat, pipe, water, moss, mildew, bacteria, ships, &c. The first use of a term is not always where a link appears, such as for Roman and iron. I'm also finding repeated linking, such as four links to iron, and the first use of the term is not always where the link is found.
  •  Done FRE YWA 01:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• I count 39 paragraphs that begin with "Copper". Please try to change it up so this doesn't stand out as much. I think no more than one paragraph per section would be good.
  •  Done FRE YWA 12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• There are too many single-sentence paragraphs.
  •  Done FRE YWA 01:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Please include some information on the elemental abundance of copper and discuss the formation via nucleosynthesis. [3] [4]
  •  Done FRE YWA 12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply