Talk:Samarium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FREYWA 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Copper may be complete, but we have another review going on! This is samarium, and the test begins now!

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are a lot of holes in the article, most of them in the history. "Reasonably pure element was created...", "Later Boisbaudran's samaria was transformed into samarium...", "...it was not until recent years that relatively pure samarium has been isolated through ion exchange processes...", and so on. FIX THEM!

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead and layout are fine, as is the fiction and lists, but what about the words to watch? There is a however in the lead section! Now, look for also's and however's in the body of the article and remove them (example: the borides section).

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Recycling method for neodymium and samarium

Perhaps mention in article, see Recycling of neodymium and samarium KVDP (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)