Talk:Nonmetal/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Nonmetal/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Nonmetal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?
2. :A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar: {{GAList/check|yes}}
3. ::
4. :B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {{GAList/check|yes}}
5. ::
6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
7. :A. Has an appropriate reference section: {{GAList/check|yes}}
8. ::
9. :B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|yes}}
10. ::
11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|yes}}
12. ::
13. Is it broad in its coverage?
14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|yes}}
15. ::
16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|yes}}
17. ::
18. Is it neutral?
19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|yes}}
20. ::
21. Is it stable?
22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|yes}}
23. ::
24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
25. :A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|y}}
26. ::
27. :B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
28. :: superb use of images and diagrams
29. Overall:
30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|yes}}
31. ::

I will review this article over the next few days. I have gone over the images; all are free and used well. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have been doing some minor copyediting; feel free to undo any and all of my edits.

::Adabow 07:22, 19 August 2013 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nonmetal/GA1&diff=569185972&oldid=569183188] sign added. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

• "Chemically, the nonmetals have relatively high ionisation energy and high electronegativity;" - should ionisation energy and electronegativity be pluralised?
• {{not done}} Since it's referring to ionisation energy and electronegativity values, I don't think it needs to be pluralized. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• The overview part of the "Categories" section could do with some more liberal linking
• {{not done}} I looked through it. I tried. I really tried. But I really don't see any terms there that aren't already linked elsewhere (well, except metallic bonding, which I have now linked). Could you point me to some terms there that you would like to see linked? Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• User:Sandbh stepped in; looks great now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Is the boldfacing of 'noble gas' warranted? Done
• "all known in polymeric forms" is ambiguous: it could mean "all potential oxides are known, and are in polymeric forms" or "all known oxides are in polymeric forms" Done Sandbh (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• In 'Abundance and extraction', several elements are mentioned which are not previously mentioned, and should therefore be linked. Done

These are all minor nitpicks; nothing here fails to meet the first criterion. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Excellently referenced, with a large number of sources. Inline citations where appropriate. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that in the 'Polyatomic nonmetals' section the vast discipline of organic chemistry should be mentioned in a sentence. Perhaps after the sentence describing the tendency for polyatomic nonmetals to catenate? Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

::Done Sandbh (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• No bias or POV statements. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• No recent edit warring or talk page disputes. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are some fantastic images here, and there are used and captioned well. All are free. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a mention of organic chemistry, as it is fundamental to the chemistry of carbon.

:A shrewd and fundamental (to life as we know it) observation. Will do. Done Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is an excellent article. I will place the review on hold for now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that Sandbh has added this, I will pass the article. Great work and well done to everyone involved; keep it up! Adabow (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

::Timely and incisive review. Much appreciated. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)