This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have improved it and I wonder if it can be moved to a Class-B article. If not, please say what additional improvements can be made.

Thanks, Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


From Philcha
  • (comment) I'll treat this as a GA review because the article already has a good number of citations, and completing the set of citations is the most important different between B-class and GA. At the end of this review I'd recommend some tools that can make this easier. --Philcha (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

edit

Structure

edit
  • My comments about coverage imply significant re-structuring of the article. When I'm editing articles, I order sections so that the first ones provide information that later ones can rely on. Quite often I find that there alternative routes through the later sections, and then I guess which is of interest to most readers and place that route first. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where we do from here

edit
  • If you go for the re-structure, I'm happy to review at least some of the sections in detail. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you don't want to do this, here are some techniques, tools and advice I've found very useful in my own work and which I think you should copy into your own toolbox:
    • If a Web page you've cited goes dead, you can often revive it by using the Internet Archive. User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died describes how to use it. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This link checker performs 2 functions, checking for dead URLs and checking that Web-based citations have all the required attributes. Use when the main text is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For creating new citations, I recommend this. as it covers a wide types of source (book, academic article, Web page, etc.). When you've completed all the fields, you ask the tool to draft the citation in the box at the bottom, and copy the citation into a ref in the article. In each case I suggest you complete all the fields, to make sure that your include those that are required. It's easier to use 3 tabs in your browser (edit box, article, tool), preferably arranged next to each other. This will seem very complex at first, but in a week or do you will do it automatically. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This checks for DAB links. Use when the main text is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the placement of wikilinks when the main text is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I leave the lead to last, when the main text is stable, so that the lead can only contain material that's already in the main text - and other editors joke about my eccentricity. Use whatever approach works for your. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In principle an article should 100% comply with WP:WIAGA. If the article is 95% when you nominated it for review, it has a good chance of passing, though you'll have to make improvements correctly and quickly. If the article is 90%, it has a chance of failure. GA review is a quality control service, not an article improvement service. If a reviewer sees a handful of small defects, he/she may fix them, but not if there many. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found new DAB links and dead URLs during GA reviews of some of "my" articles. Just explain to the reviewer then fix the problem(s) - these things are sent to try us (grrrr!) --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chemicalinterest

edit
definitely - the transition from bronze to iron age was pretty momentous I suspect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd still like a little more about Iron#history, and think Steel is a more useful "See also" than steel making - especially as Steel has lots of citations, and I'm sure some can be used in Iron. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

edit

Great article you're tackling and a complex one. Getting comprehensiveness right before copyediting etc. is a good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Biological role section, you need to add that iron is essential in plants - it is a component of chlorophyll (sort of important in photosynthesis.
  • As far as ordering articles, I like the idea that wikipedia is heading towards some form of conformity (like what a book or encyclopedia does), so I would try to base my ordering on other elements that are already Featured, especially the recent ones.
  • I'll take more of a look later.
Comments from mav

This is a vital article so we really need to get this right. Getting close to B-class, but not there yet. I updated Talk:Iron/Comments, but most importantly:

  • the history section is completely inadequate (not even mentioning the iron age), We need several subsections under ==History== before it could possibly be considered complete.
  • lede section needs to be expanded to summarize the entire article

I'm reading up on the history now and will help with that expansion. I'd like to see this become a ChemAID to get it to A-class and then to FAC. -- mav (reviews needed) 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJHall

You're correct, it isn't quite up to a B rating yet. I only glanced through parts of it, but here's a few suggestions:

  • The lead needs a little more development to properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD.
  • Many paragraphs lack citations, especially in the second half of the article.
  • There seems to be an excessive amount of parenthetical text. Usually, with a little work, that can be blended into the normal text.
  • It's a personal style issue, but I dislike seeing the pronunciation disrupting the first sentence like that (especially for a common and simple word). There's a field in the infobox for pronunciation.
  • There are a lot of instances of "also", many of which are unnecessary. Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
  • I'm not sure a typical reader will gain much information from the statement that: "Iron is a group 8 and period 4 element".
  • "...by far the most common metals..." and "...significantly strengthened..." and "...toxic in large amounts..." are vague (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Unnecessary vagueness).
  • The start of the third paragraph in the lead is somewhat redundant with the last sentence in the first paragraph.
  • "Iron is produced in a blast furnace..." I think "smelted" would be a better word than "produced".
  • "...that tests of iron are often used to relate the results of one test to another." doesn't quite make sense.
  • change to the results on iron are so consistent that iron is often used to calibrate measurements or to relate the results of one test to another--Stone (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...addition of another alpha..." should clarify that this means an alpha particle, not the α-iron mentioned earlier.
  • "Annealing involves..." is a stub paragraph. Can that be merged with another paragraph?
  • Most of your cites seem to be in good shape. There are a few, however, that are little more than a link. You should be able to use a 'cite web' template to expand on those. The "Properties of Various Pure Irons : Study on pure iron I" cite lacks any authors.

Good luck with the article.—RJH (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-class yet?
Isn't this a B-class yet? Even lead was a B-class and it had a list for the applications. I think this is better than lead, so it should be a B-Class. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iron is a vital article, so we tend to be a bit more strict. I think the major issue now is the short history section. Been real busy around the house and have not had time to help. Dive right in if you like. --mav (reviews needed) 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]