Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review/Silver

Silver

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]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic peer review

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

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?] done by Rifleman 82 MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]~~ considered and done MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?] from template --Rifleman 82 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]~~ -- not applicable Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) -- not applicable Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 25 kg, use 25 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 25 kg.^[?] what fun, done MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]~~ done --Rifleman 82 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.~~
- ~~might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]~~ checked - not applicable --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)~~checked and reduced new clutter/redundancies MornMore (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much. reduced --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.” done --Rifleman 82 07:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*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]

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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]