Wikipedia:Peer review/Zirconium/archive1

Zirconium

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan on taking Zirconium to FA. I believe the biggest issue is comprehensivity. I'm looking for suggestions on where to expand the article and where I can find the sources to do it. Also, I could definitely use some feedback on the Geological section, as it is somewhat disorganized.

Thanks, --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cambrasa (talk · contribs)

In my opinion the Applications Section should use bullet points instead of cramming all the information into a paragraph. It would make the section more clear and readable. A narrative is not needed in this section because the individual applications have little relation to one another.

I disagree with your statement "the individual applications have little relation to one another." The applications are grouped together by the form of zirconium they employ. There's a sentence for zirconium dioxide, one for zircon, one for zirconium carbonate, and a few for zirconium alloys. While it would be better to give each form an individual paragraph, there just aren't enough applications for this to be possible. I feel it is more appropriate to keep it as it is than to break it apart into a list. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about grouping the different forms of Zirconium into sections. Bullet points are used in other element articles' "Applications" sections. Perhaps you are right - it may be premature to use bullet points here as the section is not large enough. On the other hand, bullet points will encourage future contributors to stick to the format. Cambrasa (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just leave it as it is for now, and if any new application information arises in the future, we'll alter the format as needed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

I would use any of the metallic element FA articles (Francium, Technetium, Titanium, Ununoctium, Uranium) as a model article, with Ti closest. Here are some more suggestions for improvement:

Expand the lead to summarize the article per WP:LEAD, my rule of thumb is that if it is a section header it should be in the lead in some way.Expanded to include missing sections.
Since you need sources, please look at N.N. Greenwood and A. Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements or F. Albert Cotton and Geoffrey Wilkinson's Advanced Inorganic Chemistry or most Inorganic Chemistry textbooks, all of which would have lots of useful information on Zr. I would think any decent library (especially at a university or college) would have them.
Provide context for the reader - make clear zircon is a solid mineral (since it is collected from coastal waters they might think it is a solution)[Fixed] or give the date for Claproth's work with Zr. See WP:PCR
Some refs are doubtful for a chemistry article (there are LOTS of reliable sources for Zr, so "Infoplease.com" is less than ideal, especially for FAC).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't responded yet. I listed zirconium for peer review because I thought I was done working on hydrogen's FAR. However, some new issues have come up, so I'm trying to wrap that up as quickly as I can. Once I'm a tad less busy, I'll try to incorporate your feedback. I appreciate your interest and your patience. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]