Talk:Oxidation state/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very clear.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	One or two have redundancy but good enough.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some are not sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent plagiarism or copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Wish it had more media. For example, show the different compounds of each oxidation state of an element.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Fail.

Comment

I dispute the judgement of criteria 6. I count 20 images, mostly related to the "oxidation state algorithm" - this may fulfil 6a (although I agree that more images may be needed). 19 use the CC-BY-SA 4.0 License, while 1 is in the Public Domain, and none need captions as they are explained inline - this fulfils 6b. I hope this helps! Bibeyjj (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bibeyjj:Thanks! Sorry, I should've looked harder. I changed my review for 6b, but I'm not sure about 6a.Keresluna (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keresluna! Sorry for not responding to your reply sooner - not sure what happened with the ping. Thank you for following this up, and I agree with your judgements for the other criteria. Well done on conducting your first Good Article Review too!

I see that the original nominator JN Dela Cruz has not responded to any of your queries yet, even though the account has made recent edits. This may be because pings have not reached the user due to a change in the name of their account from Ice bear johny. I hope that the pings this message will create will alert the nominator. As you have already mentioned in your review, without improvements the article is likely a fail. Following WP:GAN/I#R3, it is completely your decision whether to fail the article or give it more time for improvement, as it has been nearly 3 week since you completed your review. Hope this helps! Bibeyjj (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bibeyjj: I think I will give this article one more week then if the article still isn't improved I will say its a fail. Thank you! Keresluna (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I will now close this nomination; it has been one week. Keresluna (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Keresluna: Although I don't dispute that there are quality problems or that the nominator has not followed up, I would note that "less that six days" is not a week. Due to the international nature of WP and volunteer-vs-RealWorld concerns of editors, it's important to not cut deadlines short without good cause. There are 158 references, so a simple "has original research--fail" and only one {{cn}} tag might need more nuanced explanation. DMacks (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)