Talk:Cerium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you know the drill...

Try and avoid having the three paras of the lead all start with, "Cerium..."

 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a ductile metal with a hardness comparable to that of silver. - why not just say "similar"? "Comparable" is problematic...as I can "compare" different things as well...

 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

link allotropic, orbital, subshell

 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Cerium is not toxic when consumed orally - err, you mean "eaten"..?

Good point! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Be good to get a medical Review Article for the use of cerium nitrate...

 Done Double sharp (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Are all the external links necessary? Do they add material not accessible directly via the article?

Frankly, they aren't. Removed all. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Cerium phase diagram.jpg should have some more exact sourcing listed.

This is pretty interesting. The original uploader seems to not exactly have told the full story, since the diagram comes directly from this paper. It should of course be OK for Commons (not a copyright violation) due to only containing information that is common property. Added the original source. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Cerium2.jpg has a ?non RS website as origin for source...?

It's just a photograph of the metal. Is that a problem? The creator is also on Commons and the photograph is freely licensed. It's not as if there is some data in the image that needs verification, like for the phase diagram. Would it be any different if he had uploaded it himself? Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

At present, the author is listed as "unknown" with source the website and no other information. If the uploader is the author then that should be clarified. Sorry to be picky but I think it does need a bit of tidying. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, added the author. Is it better now? Double sharp (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: