Talk:Boron group/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Choess (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Unfortunately, the prose issues, in particular, are disqualifying, and they're too great in extent for a quick fix. I'd recommend finding a copyeditor likely to have access to the references (try Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry) and try again when they've given it a thorough going-over. I know this probably feels quite discouraging, but I would like to point out that this is one of the better articles on chemical families in en.wikipedia; I'd place it a little better than alkali metal and second only to noble gas. The underlying material and references are extensive and solid, and with good copyediting, I think it will be in excellent shape.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I'm sorry to say that the prose has significant issues. I can't enumerate every error, but I will try to provide some generalizations and representative examples, mostly from the lead. Run-on sentences: "Boron is considered a metalloid, and the rest are considered poor metals, although ununtrium is not confirmed to be a poor metal yet and might not be due to relativistic effects." Not only should the portion about ununtrium be broken off into a separate sentence, it's phrased in a wordy and ambiguous manner ("might not be" what?). Compare "Ununtrium, however, may not be a poor metal due to relativistic effects." This sort of wordiness is present elsewhere in the lead and article. Why say "...and thus it is termed a synthetic element" when you could simply say "Ununtrium, a synthetic element, is not found in nature?" Don't be afraid to use simple, declarative sentences. Elsewhere in the lead, where you talk about boron, you refer to "bad symptoms" and "can cause many symptoms". That's so vague as to be meaningless. If boron deficiency or overdose does something to the body, say what it is, don't just handwave about "symptoms". On a related note, don't waste time stating obvious generalities at length, e.g., that families in the periodic table have similar electron configurations. Further along in the article, I see more statements made in too many words, and often in a way that suggests conversational rather than formal written English, e.g., "As for thallium, though..." Just say "No stable thallium hydrides have ever been synthesized." Short and to the point. Most of the prose issues fall under these general heads, although the use of "you" should also be mentioned: it's poor encyclopedic style, in my opinion, to address the reader directly in the second person.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The referencing is generally good, to reliable, appropriate scientific sources, but some raise red flags. I would prefer that the cnx.com reference be replaced by the original J. Chem. Phys. article, if in fact that article supports the material in the article. I think a better source could also be found for the names of the elements than innvista or etymonline. Ditto the webelements and thinkquest references; I would think that the Downs reference in the article would cover those points. The "Elements of Faith" reference by Richard Duncan is likely to be highly controversial, and as the fact it supports is quite straightforward, it should be easy to source it to another existing reference. Since a number of these references are to different page numbers in the same work, you might consider breaking the references into "Notes" and "Bibliography" sections, which would make it a bit less ponderous. I don't see any distinct OR, although you might consider dropping the speculation on the biological role of boron unless you have a specific citation for it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No real complaints. Coverage is decently broad and seems well-balanced.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   Image licensing checks out. The captions could use some improvement to tie them into the article, e.g., "Boron group" should say something like "Samples of the five stable elements of the boron group." and the zinc blende caption should link the image to the discovery of thallium. Drop the skull and crossbones image, which adds nothing to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: