Talk:Boron

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

^{Date: 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}

Boron 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
March 16, 2012	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Elements Top‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Mid‑importance

	Boron is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Biological role

@Bon courage: Can you help!? Can you please review the Boron#Biological role and Boron#Pharmaceutical and biological applications section. I edited these sections the last few days, and I wanted to make sure that my edits are proper and improved Wikipedia content. Still, I found Boron#Pharmaceutical and biological applications section was not formatted very well, it should have been probably split by sections, but I didn't have an idea how do to that better. Maybe you have that idea? Thank you very much in advance! --12:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! The strongest health claims are sourced to PMID:29546541, which is a quality source (on-point review article in a reputable journal). Bon courage (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chemically uncombined

@Porg656: The edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boron&diff=1180907397&oldid=1180881695 modified the meaning. It should have been "but chemically uncombined boron is not otherwise found" without commas, not "but, chemically uncombined, boron is not otherwise found". Would you please consider removing the commas as it was before!? --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Porg656 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited text throughout the article, including entire sections. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Boron

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Uncited text, including an entire section. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]