Talk:Graphene/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 18:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: ten found, six repaired and four tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   One definition given in a recent review on graphene is: recent is a vague word, be more specific, attribute the athour and date.

   Likewise with A previous definition is:

   The earliest TEM images needs explanation

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The IUPAC compendium of technology states: "previously, descriptions such as graphite layers, carbon layers, or carbon sheets have been used for the term graphene... it is incorrect to use for a single layer a term which includes the term graphite, which would imply a three-dimensional structure. The term graphene should be used only when the reactions, structural relations or other properties of individual layers are discussed." Citations needed for all quotes

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   After a complete read through, I concur with the addition of the "too technical" template, which was added last month. There are a number of uncited statements, some tagged from September 2010. The organization is poor and a number of dead links. The article has potential, but is not near GA standard at present. The nomination is by an IP with no other contribution history - I judge this as C class at best. Quickfail. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.