Talk:Hafnium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am reviewing this article against the six GA criteria. At first glance, I think that the article is a good candidate for inclusion in the GA list. It appears well-organized and reasonably complete, and it appears reasonably well-referenced. Starting to read some of the text, however, I think there is still a definite need for a good, thorough copyedit. I'm seeing lots of repeated words and phrases in the lead (e.g. repetition in two successive sentences of "in nuclear power plants" in the second paragraph). The sentence "Zirconium is used for its low neutron capture rate in fuel rods, while hafnium is used for its high neutron capturing rate in control rods." is also awkward to read; with the repetition of 'neutron capture' rate. I think this second paragraph overall can be rewritten and cleaned up.

Also, be sure to check sentence verb tenses. In the first paragraph of the history section, it states, "Mendeleev believed that the elements are ordered by their atomic masses,..." -- there should be agreement between "believed" and "are --> were".

Since I'm seeing these grammatical issues very early in the article, please give the article a good copyediting scrub before I finish the review. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try:--Stone (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I improved the grammar a bit and I added a few necessary tags. Nergaal (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

How's now? Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I am taking over for the missing reviewer and have done some copy editing. You should read through and make sure I am accurate. Also, I have made a few comments below and may add more. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Under "Isotopes", you say: "The least stable of the synthetic is..." - I don't know what you mean here, as I don't think you have mentioned synthetic before.

• The isotopes mentioned before are the nonsynthetic natural ones. Of the synthetic ones there is a least stable and a most stable. --Stone (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• You need to explain in the article, rather than use a term when the reader does not know what you mean. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• You have too much wikilinking and you don't always wikilink at the first mention, but sometimes way after, such as xray spectroscope. Generally, terms and names should be wikilinked only once, when they are first mentioned, or maybe once in the lead and once thereafter. Or a second wikilink can be used if you mention a term way down in the article, long after the first wikiling. See Overlinking and underlinking. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• More comments

• The affinity to oxygen and its heat resistance makes hafnium a good scavenger for oxygen - not clear what "scavenger" means in this context.
• Care needs to be taken when machining hafnium - not a common verb - "maching"

I think I went through all the issues. Did I miss anything? Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I see. It looks good! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): No apparent violations

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well references b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral point of view

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)