Talk:Chlorine/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the aspects of the article that caused the previous delisting have been met, so I'll give this a review. Icebob99 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
My initial overview: the article reads well. It's technical enough to be a handy reference to people who know a bit more about chlorine than the average bear, but the average bear isn't left out either. Technical references are interchanged with things that just about everyone understands (like use in WW1). Broad coverage of the topic of chlorine; the article goes beyond a rote listing of properties to the unique uses and properties of chlorine without delving into inappropriate detail. Good layout. It looks like there are a couple of bare URLs hidden in the mix; the nominator may want to replace those with a template citation.
Going through the criteria:
- Well-written: spot checks pass, I went through with a software grammar editor to find anything that I missed. Meets MoS as far as I can tell.
- Verifiable, no OR: reference format looks good (bare URLs notwithstanding), inline citations (the problem that failed this article last time) look to be all taken care of, every paragraph has at least one in-line citation. I did notice a reference to [madehow.com] (a wiki website) so I swapped to something more reliable. The rest of the references check out. Couldn't find any original research, nor any copyvio.
- Broad: Good, substantial length as befitting an article about an important element. Covers everything I could think of about chlorine, plus a few things I didn't think of.
- NPOV: Excellent neutral tone. No subjective judgements.
- Stable: Looking through some version history, seems like normal editing.
- Images: All the image licenses are either CC or public domain. Good images to use, and informative captions.
Looks all good to me. Since this is my first GA review, I'm going to contact a mentor and ask for a look-over, just to see that I covered all my bases. Icebob99 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- The GA mentor has not responded. I'm going to pass this per my review above. Icebob99 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Officially marked as a GA! Congratulations. Icebob99 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)