Wikipedia:Peer review/Iron/archive1

Iron

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have improved it and I wonder if it can be moved to a Class-B article. If not, please say what additional improvements can be made.

Thanks, Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Philcha

(comment) I'll treat this as a GA review because the article already has a good number of citations, and completing the set of citations is the most important different between B-class and GA. At the end of this review I'd recommend some tools that can make this easier. --Philcha (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

Good catch about role of iron in supernovae. --Philcha (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banded iron formations are important in the way Earth's atmosphere came to have a large proportion of oxygen - and you can borrow citations from that article :-) --Philcha (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added part of the introduction of the Banded iron formations article with citations.--Stone (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need the subatomic physics of iron, including electrons and their atomic orbitals (omitting quantum physics if possible, as that way madness ways) and valencies. I'd make it the first section - in zoology articles I describe the critter's anatomy and then physiology up front, so that the reader has a mental picture that is a good base for the rest of the article. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should summarise Steel#History_of_steelmaking - and that's a GA with citations you can copy in :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You summarise the role of iron in stellar fusion twice, at "Characteristics" and "Isotopes", more fully at "Isotopes". --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

My comments about coverage imply significant re-structuring of the article. When I'm editing articles, I order sections so that the first ones provide information that later ones can rely on. Quite often I find that there alternative routes through the later sections, and then I guess which is of interest to most readers and place that route first. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where we do from here

If you go for the re-structure, I'm happy to review at least some of the sections in detail. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't want to do this, here are some techniques, tools and advice I've found very useful in my own work and which I think you should copy into your own toolbox:
- If a Web page you've cited goes dead, you can often revive it by using the Internet Archive. User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died describes how to use it. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This link checker performs 2 functions, checking for dead URLs and checking that Web-based citations have all the required attributes. Use when the main text is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For creating new citations, I recommend this. as it covers a wide types of source (book, academic article, Web page, etc.). When you've completed all the fields, you ask the tool to draft the citation in the box at the bottom, and copy the citation into a ref in the article. In each case I suggest you complete all the fields, to make sure that your include those that are required. It's easier to use 3 tabs in your browser (edit box, article, tool), preferably arranged next to each other. This will seem very complex at first, but in a week or do you will do it automatically. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This checks for DAB links. Use when the main text is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the placement of wikilinks when the main text is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I leave the lead to last, when the main text is stable, so that the lead can only contain material that's already in the main text - and other editors joke about my eccentricity. Use whatever approach works for your. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle an article should 100% comply with WP:WIAGA. If the article is 95% when you nominated it for review, it has a good chance of passing, though you'll have to make improvements correctly and quickly. If the article is 90%, it has a chance of failure. GA review is a quality control service, not an article improvement service. If a reviewer sees a handful of small defects, he/she may fix them, but not if there many. --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found new DAB links and dead URLs during GA reviews of some of "my" articles. Just explain to the reviewer then fix the problem(s) - these things are sent to try us (grrrr!) --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! --Philcha (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chemicalinterest

I summarized history of steelmaking. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a little more, but it's near enough. But you should use as a "main article" Steel#History_of_steelmaking, and use its citations. --Philcha (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just about steel making, it should be about all ferrous metallurgy. That's why ferrous metallurgy is main article and steel making is just "see also". --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about Steel, not steel making. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Isotopes" is in "Characteristics": It is not clear what you mean.~~I removed double mention of ⁵⁶Fe. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added its valence and the tendency of Fe³⁺ to act as an oxidizing agent and Fe²⁺ to act as a reducing agent. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganized it according to the Guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Guidelines. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's encouraging that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Guidelines and the structure I suggested look all most identical. In this article you also need the roles of Iron in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere and Iron's role in stellar physics (large stars end as supernovas that produce neutron stars or black holes). And you still need to fix the duplication of the stellar physics. --Philcha (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to comform with the good article guidelines. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need more citations, for even the smaller item. For example I saw a para with a citation at the 2nd last sentence, means that the last sentence had no citation. WP:V takes no prisoners. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have limited access, I do not have many sources; that's why I only wanted it promoted to a B-class article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some are already Web pages, they're easy. Authors of articles sometimes put PDFs on their personal or faculty library- save these on your PC in case the vanish, then use them. Google Books sometimes provides useful extracts of books. You need to be resourceful. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Iron(IV) is common in biochemical mechanisms". Are you sure it is Iron(IV)? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK I did not suggest "Iron(IV) is common in biochemical mechanisms" - unless I was dreaming. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not you... Smokefoot. I left a talkback template on his page. He just made the edit with it in. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref, the point is that iron gets oxidized and than acts as potent oxidation compound. abstract--Stone (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a better reference? [1] ? --Stone (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iron is a better material because it keeps an edge while bronze gets blunt quickly - significant in agriculture and a matter of life or death in war. I remember a book that said Mycenaean culture did not know iron, for example in the Iliad everything was bronze. I'm sure you can find a citation or two. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank everyone for all of the work they put into iron. Do you think that iron#history still needs to be expanded?--Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

definitely - the transition from bronze to iron age was pretty momentous I suspect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd still like a little more about Iron#history, and think Steel is a more useful "See also" than steel making - especially as Steel has lots of citations, and I'm sure some can be used in Iron. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to put info for uses of chemical compounds in Compounds or Applications of iron compounds? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for Applications of iron compounds: my usual principle of providing basic information and then how it's used; and mixing the basic chemistry and the applications could because confusion. --Philcha (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

Great article you're tackling and a complex one. Getting comprehensiveness right before copyediting etc. is a good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Biological role section, you need to add that iron is essential in plants - it is a component of chlorophyll (sort of important in photosynthesis.

As far as ordering articles, I like the idea that wikipedia is heading towards some form of conformity (like what a book or encyclopedia does), so I would try to base my ordering on other elements that are already Featured, especially the recent ones.

I'll take more of a look later.

Comments from mav

This is a vital article so we really need to get this right. Getting close to B-class, but not there yet. I updated Talk:Iron/Comments, but most importantly:

the history section is completely inadequate (not even mentioning the iron age), We need several subsections under ==History== before it could possibly be considered complete.
lede section needs to be expanded to summarize the entire article

I'm reading up on the history now and will help with that expansion. I'd like to see this become a ChemAID to get it to A-class and then to FAC. -- mav (reviews needed) 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJHall

You're correct, it isn't quite up to a B rating yet. I only glanced through parts of it, but here's a few suggestions:

The lead needs a little more development to properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD.
Many paragraphs lack citations, especially in the second half of the article.
There seems to be an excessive amount of parenthetical text. Usually, with a little work, that can be blended into the normal text.
It's a personal style issue, but I dislike seeing the pronunciation disrupting the first sentence like that (especially for a common and simple word). There's a field in the infobox for pronunciation.
There are a lot of instances of "also", many of which are unnecessary. Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
I'm not sure a typical reader will gain much information from the statement that: "Iron is a group 8 and period 4 element".
"...by far the most common metals..." and "...significantly strengthened..." and "...toxic in large amounts..." are vague (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Unnecessary vagueness).
The start of the third paragraph in the lead is somewhat redundant with the last sentence in the first paragraph.
"Iron is produced in a blast furnace..." I think "smelted" would be a better word than "produced".

changed.--Stone (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...that tests of iron are often used to relate the results of one test to another." doesn't quite make sense.

change to the results on iron are so consistent that iron is often used to calibrate measurements or to relate the results of one test to another--Stone (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...addition of another alpha..." should clarify that this means an alpha particle, not the α-iron mentioned earlier.

Added particle.--Stone (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Annealing involves..." is a stub paragraph. Can that be merged with another paragraph?
Most of your cites seem to be in good shape. There are a few, however, that are little more than a link. You should be able to use a 'cite web' template to expand on those. The "Properties of Various Pure Irons : Study on pure iron I" cite lacks any authors.

added the authors.--Stone (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the article.—RJH (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-class yet?

Isn't this a B-class yet? Even lead was a B-class and it had a list for the applications. I think this is better than lead, so it should be a B-Class. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron is a vital article, so we tend to be a bit more strict. I think the major issue now is the short history section. Been real busy around the house and have not had time to help. Dive right in if you like. --mav (reviews needed) 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]