Talk:Vanadium/GA3

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Alot of maintenance tags on this. If someone is keen to resolve these then we can look at other issues. AIRcorn (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to add a few references. --Stone (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we seem to have gotten all but one citation needed tag. (Regrettably, I don't currently have access to my copy of Greenwood & Earnshaw, which would be very helpful!) Double sharp (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to the situation with Pd, the article frequently strays from the main topic and has some MoS issues as well. Would probably require a rewrite to re-achieve GA status, which will certainly come in time. Will give 7 more days to see if substantial improvements are made to the article, but it doesn't appear too likely. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Are there any in particular you have in mind? This seems easier to fix, as the citation issues seem to have been largely dealt with. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp:, sorry for the delay. I have not been actively monitoring this reassessment, but I'm glad to see that you are willing to look into this article to retain its Good Article status.

Nothing major stands out to me in terms of needing improvement. The content is all suitable, but could use some light copyediting in terms of punctuation and transition. This is something that I might do after this list is complete. Done. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Some sources" is weaselly, and "perhaps" does not give confidence to the reader about the validity of the claim.

I believe that this section goes far too in depth with information about vanadium pentoxide, and includes information that is far more suitable on the compound's article rather than in the article for Vanadium. While I don't disagree that vanadium pentoxide is an important use for vanadium, it is not the primary topic of the article, and the article's pacing could better be spent discussing the chemistry of pure vanadium.

V₂O₅ is rather an industrially important compound, though. It looks like a lot mainly because it's one paragraph split up by two equations: there is a lot more that can be said about it and what is included honestly does not look like much to me. We can't exactly talk only about the chemistry of the pure element, because as soon as an element exhibits some chemistry it's not the pure element anymore. ;) Double sharp (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the subsections should probably be combined, and try to be woven more coherently together. I would start at a macro scale before moving down to small scale, all in one section. An example of this would be starting at the presence of vanadium in the universe, then the earth's crust, and then how it is found on earth (whether it's in seawater or bauxite). From there, I would make a subsection talking about where on earth vanadium is found, and what countries produce the most of it.

I've been letting this word slide earlier, but "Vanadium is more important in marine environments than terrestrial" is subjective in the terms that anybody can deem what they think is more important to them, and I'd recommend that this sentence be altered or removed. I'd also say that this section is far too long. By this I mean that the concentration of vanadium in the blood of ascidians isn't important enough to include in the article, but because importance is suggestive, I won't push for the removal of this content.

I probably wouldn't have GAR'ed this article, but because it was, I figured I would follow through with the review because there were several problems that needed addressing. With that being said, the fixes needed above are all that I think are necessary in order to bring the article back to GA status. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Been a month, delisting. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]