Talk:Dysprosium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have completed my review of this article. I found it a generally positive addition to Wikipedia. There are a few issues regarding the prose and coverage in the lead, as well as the article body, that I believe should be addressed before this article is ready for promotion to GA status. I have detailed my reasonings below, along with commentary on how this article compares with the various criteria for Good Articles. Commentary is welcome, as is correction of the points I believe need improvement before this article can pass the Good Article nomination. I am watching this page and the article page, but I would be likely to respond more quickly if a message is left on my talk page. I am placing this nomination on hold for now pending improvement. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

The lead needs a little work. First, it should be expanded a bit to summarize all of the main points in the article. For example, it should mention the toxicity of the compounds and element, not simply the fact that a Dysprosium fire cannot be put out with water. The lead in particular, but some other parts of the article as well, use some very short, choppy sentences which detract from the readability of the article. Other than those points, the article seems to be well-written and clear. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read after the additions and copy editing, and it reads much better. I believe the current version satisfies the well-written criteria, so I am updating the no's to yes's. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

I believe the citations are of the quality necessary and are sufficiently reliable to fulfill the references criteria. There is a single citation that I have a question about. The statement that "Terfenol-D has the highest room-temperature magnetoresistance of any known material" uses the company that manufactures Terfenol-D as its only reference. I would like to see this statement cited by a more neutral reference. It is not that I doubt the company's claim as such, but we at Wikipedia should try to avoid any appearence of a conflict of interest wherever possible. This itself is not enough for me to decide to fail the article on the reference criteria, but it should be improved nonetheless. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

The article seems to adequately cover the broad aspects of this element. I would however like to see some expansion of the history section. From the discovery onward, virtually nothing is said about the element. If that is because uses were not discovered for the element until recently, that should be discussed, as well as when uses for the element were discovered. The use of this element in lasers and nuclear technology may be recent history, but it is still history and deserves a mention in the history section. That doesn't mean all of the uses should be detailed in the history section, but when, how and by who were the uses of Dy in lasers and nuclear control rods discovered/experimented with? Also, what other notable experiments were conducted with this element prior to these more modern uses? If none were conducted, why not? The discussion of how the element was discovered (how did the scientist know he had a different element?) could use a little expansion as well.

I mentioned it under the "well written" section already, but the lead could use a little expansion. Part of that would be re-writing the lead to eliminate the choppy nature of some of the sentences while adding a little more detail. A little more detail on the precautions is also in order. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The additions to the lead means that is no longer a concern. Since the history section has as much information as is available about the element, it is as comprehensive as it can be at this point. With that in mind, I would say it passes the good article criteria. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

I see no potential for NPOV issues. There seem to be no controversies regarding this element. Therefore, there is no concern regarding weight given to one or the other controversy. Neither does there seem to be a notable controversy regarding this element which should be, yet is not included in this article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.

There is no evidence of an edit war or any other conflict that would harm the stability of this article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

There are only two images of the element on this page. I believe the lack of additional images does not disqualify this article from being a Good Article, but additional images illustrating some of the following would be a plus to this article.

Examples of the compounds and/or minerals that contain Dy
Images of the element and its compounds in use, such as a Dy laser or nuclear control rods

As I said, I would not claim that these images are necessary for the article to reach GA status, but I believe they would be a positive addition to the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Cool. I'll try to start working on the lead and choppy sentences tonight, as that won't be hard. I'll check out Discovery of the Elements this weekend to expand the History section. It might not have exactly what you're asking for, but I should definitely be able to use it in some way, as it is a fabulous resource. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead a touch, and added some semi-relevant history information. I really expected the book to be more help than it was. The entry for platinum is miles long and goes into incredible detail, but the entry for dysprosium is shorter than the first history paragraph! Also, would you mind pointing out some specific examples of short, choppy sentences? It's hard for me to copyedit my own work, as I'm too familiar with the way it's written. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the addition to the history section. The second paragraph is only tangentally related to the subject of the article. It is somewhat related, but I do not know if it adds anything, other than length. I really don't know if the information should be included in the article, as it may drift a little too far off the topic. It may be better to leave the history section as it was if more information is not available rather than introduce that material, though if you think it should stay I would certainly consider a second opinion.

I corrected the most obvious (to me) sentences in the lead that I thought were a little choppy. I know what you mean about copyediting your own work, when you write it yourself it is hard to step back and see how it should be improved; I often have the same problem. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey doke. The three main issues:

Lead: Good to go?
Choppy sentences: I went through the article and tried to spruce up the prose wherever I could. I believe this may solve your problem; have another read-through and tell me what you think.
History: You're right that the californium paragraph is "tangentially related." I do think it would be of interest to anyone who is interested in the etymology of the elements, as it shows how the name of one directly affected the naming of another. As to the histories of the applications, the problem is that scientific journals rarely make sweeping statements such as "this is the very first time that..." or "this material is the most...". Facts like those are more often found in books, and I've already exhausted all of my favorite resources. I'll keep looking for journals, but I really don't expect to find anything. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as a Good Article. I believe the current version easily passes the good article criteria. Cryptic has done a great deal of work to bring this article up to GA standards, so a big thank you to him and everyone else who has worked on this article is in order. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]