Talk:Ruthenium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

An interesting, well-referenced, well-illustrated article. Its certainly at GA-level.

A few minor comments:

• Characteristics -
  • Physical -

• I suggest that you "spell out" the atypical configuration: I presume it is the single electron in the outer shell that is being discussed (the others are even - 2).

• Spelled out the fact that there is only one electron in the outer shell.--Stone (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Chemical -

• That Ruthenium.hydrochloride.carbonyl "thingy" had me scratching my head for sometime. You aught to name it: my first throught was that the PPh₃ was a typo, the "Ph" was the problem - I had to go to Cotton & Wilkinson to find out that it was a triphenylphosphine (or a trialkyl- triaryl- phosphine).

• Spelled out the Chlorohydridocomplex.--Stone (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• History & WP:Lead -

• A couple of minor differences, and your statements are not cited.
• Partington (1964) History of Chemistry, Volume four, p.499, confirms most of the final three paragraphs, but uses the name Carl Ernst Claus and your Karl Klaus is piped to Karl Ernst Claus. He also states the Claus used the original name proposed by Osann (Osann was professor of chemistry and pharmacy at Dorpat (Tartu) (1823-8)), so no argument about the name/location just who "coined" it.

• Added the fact that he reused the name from Osann.--Stone (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   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:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I have left a few minor comments, above, in Initial Comments; however, overall this article is compliant with WP:WIAGA. I'm therefore awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)