Talk:Molybdenum/GA1

This article deserves GA status. It is well written, neutral, stable and well referenced with in-line citations. A few minor problems had been fixed during the review, as documented below. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

• Please check the dead links here and "citation needed" tags.

• Tried to get rid of all but one of them. The australian one needs more time.--Stone (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Removed the australian reference and added two others.--Stone (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Clarify "free oxygen" (gas, atoms, else ?)

• This is diatomic oxygen gas. --Stone (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to oxygen. free is missleading.--Stone (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Clarify "alkaline water"

• strong base like potassium hydroxide in water--Stone (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Changed.--Stone (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• "reached a peak of $103,000 per tonne in June 2005" - why?

• The resposible person is not named! I think it is like always, high demand and a lot of gamblers on the stock market.--Stone (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• added the phrase: due to increased demand.--Stone (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is it true that oxidation state zero is among the most stable ones ? How about 2+ (sulfides) ? This refers to bolding some values in the oxidation state table.

• Zero is stable enough if it is bulk material, but you are right it is not among the most stable ones in the lab.--Stone (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Changed.--Stone (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I changed some {{chem templates into usual <sub, <sup because the formulas get split up at line break. Materialscientist (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• This is just a hint that the info on number of Mo enzymes is obsolete in the article. Could you update that? Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• doi:10.1016/j.bbamcr.2006.03.013 gives 50 by 2002, so lets take that number. But I will try to get latest number.--Stone (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I found no newer numbers. I put the numbers in from the journal mentioned above--Stone (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  I failed too - new articles simply re-cite old reviews. A specialist is needed here. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)