# Talk:Widgiemoolthalite

Structure check: density
Mg5(CO3)4(OH)2·4H2O (ideal hydromagnesite): 2.255 g/cm3
(467.63763 x 2)/ (0.688777 x 10-21 x 6.022 x 1023)
(Formula mass: 467.63763 g/mol; Z = 2; Volume: 0.688777 nm3)
(Mg,Ni)5(CO3)4(OH)2·4H2O: 2.669 g/cm3
(Formula mass: 553.6086 g/mol; Z = 2; Volume: 0.688777 nm3)
(Ni,Mg)5[OH|(CO3)2]2·5H2O (widgiemoolthalite): 3.058 g/cm3
(Formula mass: 614.609304 g/mol; Z = 2; Volume: 0.6675 nm3)
2.5 times Ni - 2.5 times Mg: (58.6934 u x 2.5) - (24.305 u x 2.5)
(Avogadro constant:  6.022×1023 mol-1)
Ref.: Mineralienatlas
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Widgiemoolthalite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


### Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 4, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: , article is well written in a professional style, seems complete and clear in information
2. Verifiable?: , as far as the accessible references go, the accuracy of the article seems ok
3. Broad in coverage?: , this is a short article about a mineral with only 1 occurrence, which may not be suitable for a GA anyway. One of the main sources for minerals; Webmineral.com link, is not included and although it lists the same information, the link should be part of the article. The introduction is too short for even the short article and should list all the important points of each of the chapters included. There is more information to be included from the pdf (the only accessible link for me; I don't have subscriptions to the other journals, e.g. "single crystals could not be separated, ..., because of the small lateral dimensions of the fibers". Other sources found Googling should all be included in any form, e.g. "Title	Chemical Thermodynamics of Nickel - Volume 6 of Chemical Thermodynamics - Contributors	OECD, Federico J. Mompean, Myriam Illemassène, Jane Perrone - Publisher	Elsevier, 2005 - ISBN 0080457541, 9780080457543 - Length	648 pages" (Google Book), this publication, this one, and this one. The short article misses a "See also" section to guide the reader to interesting other single occurrence minerals or related nickel carbonates, or other minerals found in the same mine. The link and article name of gaspeite should be corrected to gaspéite, as that is the official spelling on MinDat.
The gaspéite page has been moved and links in the page fixed.
I've included two of the linked article sources (which are actually one source in two slightly different forms). The book you mention, plus the Whitfield article, have both already been incorporated into the article.
I found some interesting information on Webmineral so I added it as a source.
Lead expanded by two sentences.
Added info about the crystals' dimensions being too small.
4. Neutral point of view?: , no issues
5. Stable?: , idem
6. Images?: , there are three images available on Commons and they should all be included to have the most complete feel of the article.
A final comment, on the images: I think, since this article is relatively short and because the images are not substantially different, adding more than the one in the infobox would be superfluous and cluttering. All the images are linked via the Commons category, which should be adequate.
As mentioned; this article may be not notable enough to serve as a GA, although most of the available information seems present (see comments above for more additions), the criteria for "Good Article" may be stretched too much if articles of this size are part of the GAs. Nothing against the article itself, it's the topic and the single occurrence that defines the "not suitable for GA" status, which is more nature's "fault" than that of the author.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Tisquesusa (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Tisquesusa, thanks for taking the time to conduct this review and especially for finding a few extra sources! I'll take a look at these points in the next week and respond to them as needed, and hopefully get this article to the place it needs to be for you to deem it a Good Article. Before getting into the finer points, I want to defend the possibility that this article is even eligible for GA, as short as it is: per the Good Article criteria, an article should be considered a GA if "it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and ... it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Especially relevant, the criteria offer this footnote regarding these requirements: "The 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." With this in mind, I'm of the firm belief that this article should, under the criteria, be eligible (with a little more work, sure), as it currently contains almost all of the known information on widgiemoolthalite and should, by the end of a few days from now, contain even more (per your suggested refs). Anyway, I'll get to work improving this soon! Thanks again, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
A note for anyone who offers a second opinion: please see the discussion at my talkpage for more explanation. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 03:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The article length, in general, is fine. I would recommend going into more detail from the source you have, like explaining that the hardness couldn't be tested because it is too brittle (it is mentioned in some capacity in the article already, but I wouldn't have known without reading the source). I don' think anything else is under dispute so I won't comment, but there is no minimum length for GA, this article is generally long enough but I would recommend extracting more details from the sources you have. Kees08 (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Procedurally speaking, there's no such thing as being "notable enough to serve as a GA"—if a a topic passes our basic notability threshold for inclusion, then an article about that topic can be a GA. With 615 words of readable prose, this article isn't even that short; we have GAs like this one that are one third of that size. If an article is comprehensive and meets the other criteria as explicitly stated, then it can be listed as a GA regardless of length. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
What's going on with this?Kees08 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tisqususa and Bobamnertiopsis:

Thanks for pinging us, Kees08. My world has been a little busy but I'll take another look at this article tomorrow. As I understand it right now, Tisqususa reviewed the article and made comments to which I responded by expanding the article and adding additional sources. Unsure if the article was long enough to qualify as GA, Tisqususa suggested we get a second opinion which I solicited at WP:GAN. Yourself and Juliancolton provided responses suggesting that the article could be a GA if Tisqususa believed it fulfilled the other GA criteria. You raised the concern that there could be more info added from one of the sources, which I'll look into tomorrow. That said, GA criterion 3 asks only that the article be broad, not comprehensive, which is an FA requirement. My suggestion is that the article is already broad enough to satisfy that criterion but I'll be happy to add more if I can find it. Anyway, as far as I can tell, that's what's going on with this. Thanks for asking! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 04:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If the length is no problem, GA pass for me. Added 1 cat, 1 image and the link to the mine where the mineral has been found. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't easy to think of any good reason why an article should be illustrated with two images with identical captions and very similar appearances. Since the second one was less sharp (out of focus or at poor resolution, or both) than the first, I've removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)