Talk:IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review to follow shortly. Thanks to the nominator for tackling an important and challenging topic. Canada Hky (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dead external link to ACD labs site. Canada Hky (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial notes

There is a lot of material in this article, and naming is a subject that can be tricky. Here are things I noted on an initial run-through of the article.

There are references in the article, which is good. Inline citations would really help, especially if they included page numbers to specific sections of the IUPAC policy on naming. While naming isn't particularly controversial, minor changes can lead to misunderstandings so having citations as close as possible to the material, and having the citations be as specific as possible can only be helpful.
The lead needs to be expanded. It needs to introduce the topic in enough detail so that a reader can understand what the article is about. It should not refer to later sections of the article, but rather introduce the material.
There is no context for the naming protocols, their history, their adoption, how widespread their usage is, etc.
Section headings should be in sentence case, rather than title case.
The usage of lists is quite extensive in this article, check out the MOS sections on bulleted lists (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists), and see if these can be minimized a bit.
The text in the lists is a bit problematic. An encyclopedia article should describe the rules, rather than explaining how to use them. As it is now, the lists in this article read a lot like how an organic chem instructor would explain it to his students. That isn't really the tone needed in the article. I think it would read better to describe the rules, and then use an example for an explanation of the steps.
- Phrasing like "Now we..." is unencyclopedic and needs to be removed.
I would classify alkanes, alkenes, alkynes as functional groups for the purposes of naming, unless IUPAC specifically does it differently.
The list of external links could be trimmed a bit.
Some context to the "See also" pages would be helpful.
The section about naming ions seems a bit tacked on. Possibly a page that could be split off into its own entity, similar to the Inorganic nomenclature?
The article is already quite long, would the material on common names be better included somewhere else?

That's all I have for now. These are probably fairly extensive edits that need to be made, but I will put the article on hold for seven days to allow these issues to be addressed. Canada Hky (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]