I will review, but I might miss a few things and mistakes (especially the references). I'll divide the review into sections, and write for each one. At the end of the review page I will put the criteria for the good article.
- "Carbon also has the highest melting and sublimation point of all elements. At atmospheric pressure it has no melting point as its triple point is at 10.8 ± 0.2 MPa and 4600 ± 300 K, so it sublimates at about 3900 K." It says that it has the highest melting point of all of the elements, then contradicts itself by saying it has no melting point. Anything to reword, mabye putting its melting point under a certain pressure? (unless it will still sublime, them mabye put that it doesn't have one because it sublimes)
- Mabye put the temperatures in degrees celsius too (and farenheight)? Just for people who might not know the kelvin scale or don't understad a given temperature's degree of heat or coolness?(?) in kelvin like not knowing that 100 K is like way below freezing temperatures.
- "Although thermodynamically prone to oxidation, carbon resists oxidation more effectively than elements such as iron and copper that are weaker reducing agents at room temperature." source? and just asking, why are its properties being compared so much to metals even though it is a nonmetal? The difference between metals and nonmetals is very great already such as brittleness, refractivity, flexability, tendance of different states of matter...
- from the text "It does not react with sulfuric acid..." to the text "...C(s) + H2O(g) → CO(g) + H2(g)." in the third para. Put a source for its reactions with the compounds and the substances with which it doesn't react.
Ok, I'm back, I'm continuing with where I left off.
Ok, except for two things:
- Coal is a significant commercial source of mineral carbon; anthracite containing 92–98% carbon and the largest source (4,000 Gt, or 80% of coal, gas and oil reserves) of carbon in a form suitable for use as fuel. unclear. Reword?
- in the fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraph, can you put a source for each of them?
The rest is fine.
Formation in Stars
good, but fix the "citation needed" template in the last paragraph.
The wording and prose is fine, but the one thing that directly caught my sight was that there was no sources for all of the papagraphs. please fix them so they can be at least one ref. per para.
I'm back, so i will pick up where i left off.
History and etymology
good, even though at first it seemed that there was only one ref. until i looked through the ref. and saw it had all of the info placed.
A good subsection.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations, Carbon is now a Good article!!