Talk:Promethium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AstroHurricane001 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

---

The article is of decent quality and adequately summarizes known relevant facts - recommend clearing up the remaining "citation needed" tag.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Adequate summary of the article; however some minor improvements can be made such as reducing number of semi-colons for readability.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Sufficient sources for a well-developed article, though there is just one "citation needed" that needs addressing in section 1.1.

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):

   The image of Promethium(III) chloride is Fair use, and remains valid until a free image of the unstable compound can be identified - there are currently no images in the article of promethium metal, or graphics of interstellar promethium that may have been detected via astronomical instruments.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The next step is to make the article on par with Technetium, a current featured article.