Talk:Byne's disease/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll begin reviewing here, and will make straightforward changes as I go (hopefully with explanations in edit summaries). Feel free to revert changes which inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~For flow in the lead, I think I'd put para 2 above para 3 as one wants to know what it is before what else it attacks.~~

I agree. Done!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought 'alkaline' was more widely understood and less ambiguous than 'basic' these days...(?)

I feel the material is too short in the History section to warrant subsection. It also interrupts with the flow of storytelling.

~~The first time someone is mentioned by name, I feel adding a couple of descriptors is valuable in understanding (usually nationality and occupation, eg. English naturalist, American zoologist etc.)~~

Their deep analysis, involving many complex and sophisticated techniques,... - this leaves me curious, and does come across as a little patronising - eg 'too complicated for you poor readers to know.' I am sure some discussion can be included here :)

Yes, I believe you are right. I have access to this paper, so I put in some more detail. Surprisingly enough, there were articles covering all the techniques. That's very good! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the chemical reactions is a little unwieldy as a heading. Could be simply 'chemistry' or even 'biochemistry'.

Second Reviewer: --Snek01 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: will not be checked (I am not good at English.)

Improve this "In the first case," to much detailed.

Manual of Style compliance:

proposal: Clarification and Resolution merge to "Discovery of the cause".
proposal: Process Rename to "Chemistry" and ommitt caption name "Details of the chemical reactions". (Add PVC reaction if needed.)
proposal: Add wikilinks to the materials in table row "Archival materials without acidic fumes". Added.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Not referenced PVC problem.

Done.

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Not explained, why the PVC is problem.

Done.

Now explained and supported by Sturm (2006).--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

One alt text missing.
I will crop the File:File:Bynesian Decay 001.JPG. May I? --Snek01 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Please go ahead.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped and colors altered. --Snek01 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about to add one sentence about an alternative way/ways(?) of storage? The only alternative is ethanol, I think.
A link to display case... ?

--Snek01 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, we're over the line...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]