Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review/Silver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was nominated for FA in 2004. The main thing was its shortness. History was mentioned to be poor; that has since been fixed. The applications section should be turned into prose, rather than a list. I've tried to do that with palladium. Referencing can be improved. Otherwise, I think it's not a bad article. --Rifleman 82 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three additional references have a good compilation of the history of silver: [1], [2] and [3].--Stone 11:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Stone. Have some reservations about the first link because while the page itself is fine, the site promotes the use of colloidal silver, and that is not without controversy. I've cleaned up the list, turning it into prose. Perhaps someone can take a look and improve it where needed? Link #2 seems excellent. I'll look into that one in more detail again. --Rifleman 82 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has some good content, but I think it needs a little more work. You might want to take a look at how the Hydrogen featured article is organized, starting with a history. The introduction seems too short; it doesn't really summarize the article. You might mention the actual percent reflectivity of untarnish silver in the optical spectrum, and also the use of transparent quartz overcoats on silver mirrors to prevent tarnishing. Overall I'd say it needs more citations. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the introduction. Are there any areas which might be lacking (for the intro)? --Rifleman 82 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic peer review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] done --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The silvering has to rewritten, the description of aluminium sputtering is longer than the famous Liebig silvering which is still used for high qualizy mirrors. I added the references to the original publication in the silvering article.--Stone 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll take a look at that later, thank you. --Rifleman 82 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better than when I nominated it, but then FA criteria were much, much weaker back then. Still a lot of work to do. This one is on my list but I'm currently working on getting Uranium ready for FAC. Please look at that article to get an idea of how a metal element article should be organized and cited. --mav 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completed the outstanding open automated items except the thorough copyedit - do not feel qualified. Re-checked other items due to new entries. What's the next step?MornMore (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]