Good articleGroup 5 element has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starGroup 5 element is the main article in the Group 5 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 4, 2023Good article nomineeListed
June 8, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 17, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that all stable group 5 elements are silvery-blue refractory metals?
Current status: Good article

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Group 3 element which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 20:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Group 5 element/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Article looks like it's in reasonably good shape, though at a glance I do see a few things worth adressing. I will take a closer look and write up a more detailed review. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review. I am going to be quite busy for the next few weeks, so I might not respond swiftly to queries. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just ping me when you have time to go through the article. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]



What looks good:

Detailed discussion of some things to improve:

Lead:

Moved to the history section. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to production section. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that “coordination chemistry”, “lanthanide contraction” and “electropositive” might seem a bit technical, but I think the others are fine. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified these terms. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 08:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History:

Made some amendments, although majority of the history of the elements of this group is on dubnium. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might some time to implement. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Production:

Changed. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that this is an overview article about many elements. I think that it would make more sense if we keep it to its constituent elements. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misc:

Rearranged. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed occurrences of jargon. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:

Changed all occurrences of it to the template ((Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd)) 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 18:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures:

Added a picture for applications and biological occurrences, wasn’t able to add pictures to occurrence and toxicity and precautions. 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do tag these pictures?141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The copyediting is reasonable.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead needs some simplification for the general audience, the organization of the sections needs some clarification/streamlining.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Nicely formatted citations.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    The vast majority of the citations are good, but there's one unreliable source and a dead link that should be fixed.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Looks good.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Probably no copyright violations, but pictures need tagging.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Missing some info applications and history (see comments above)
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Coverage goes into a bit too much detail on the names of the elements. Could be summarized more shortly and leave the detailed coverage to the individual articles.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    The most contentious thing here is probably the naming of Dubnium, which is handled pretty fairly.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit wars I can see.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Missing tags.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Looks good
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    HOLD. The article's sourcing is good, there is some issues with organization and the relative weight of coverage, the article is a bit too technical, and there are a few minor things to fix. There's substantial useful information here, but it needs some tweaks to get to GA status. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be away over the next few days, so I might not be on Wikipedia. Is it ok if you extend the hold time? 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have added some comments. Check them out! 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbes72: I have addressed all of the issues that I can. Is it OK if you go through my comments as soon as possible? 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 12:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Praseodymium-141 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Group 5 element; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Praseodymium-141: Good article. AGF on hook citation Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories