Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Group 4 element/1

Group 4 element edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist - Not enough discussion to get a solid conclusion here, but it's been open for 6 months. Quantity of media is not a GA criterion, and people disagree about whether the biological occurances section expansion is necessary to keep GA status. Femke (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article meets the criteria as there is not a lot of media, and precautions and biological occurences could be expanded. Bli231957 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, biocompatibility of Ti should probably be mentioned. That said, I don't think there's much of a need to duplicate everything in the articles on the individual elements: this can very well be a summary article that focuses on things common to the whole group. Double sharp (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is information lacking in these sections doesn’t mean that we should demote it from good article status. Instead, we should get referenced information about this from the individual elements’ articles. That way, we do not need to demote the article while putting new, properly referenced information and filling in information gaps. We can do this with other periodic table group that are Start-Class or C-Class so we can get them to B-Class and good articles as well. I agree that we do need more information on the Groups and Periods articles but that we shouldn’t put everything - just the major and important facts and knowledge that fill in the gaps. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what shall we conclude with? It has been 6 months since the original reassessment has been started. ¹⁴¹ Pr 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it as a GA-Class article, because it mostly adequately summarises the elements. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.