Talk:Wetting/GA1

GA Review

Review

I've stumbled upon this article by change and I believe it is up to GA standards. I admit that I haven't read it in detail, but preliminary impressions are that it's of a good quality. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to review this article. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to promote this article to GA status. Everything seems to check out. The writing flows well, it has good grammer, no original research as far as I can tell, it stays on topic, is stable, has picture tags, and is neutral. All in all, a Good Article. :)

Now for the criticism/things you can improve on before FA! First of all, a casual scan of the article won't do the average reader any good; it has a lot of big ideas. I like how you defined some terms on the page (contact angle) and also wikilinked them. Keep in mind what it says in the Manual of Style: "A general approach is to start simple, then move toward more abstract and technical statements as the article proceeds."

Also, you need more references! You only have five, and I can't see any of them! The article is short, so it's excusable, but it definately needs more before FA. Try to find at least one online ref. :)

All in all, good job. Please continue to read over this article and to improve other related articles. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)