Talk:Oxaziridine/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I left a message regarding this article a couple of months ago here and at the chemistry wikiproject. Unfortunately it does not comply with the GA criteria with regards to the lead and I am unable to fix it myself. Hopefully someone will notice this and be able to sort the article out otherwise I will have to delist it. AIRcorn (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would say that the article originally had a full lead section, however, since I wrote it, someone moved that to the history section, and added a one line lead. I didn't want to just undo his edit, as I believe that would be frowned upon, but I think that it was better the way it was originally, and it would comply with the lead specifications. I guess I'll modify it back to something similar to the original layout, and you can see what you think. I also don't think that it is necessarily appropriate to have the data sheet for the parent oxaziridine. Noone would be looking for that information. It's not like the epoxide page has a data sheet for ethylene oxide. Instead, it focuses on the reactivity and synthesis of epoxides as a functional group. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I returned it to something similar to its original format. Perhaps that meets the specifications. Feel free to undo is you think that it's not appropriate. Thanks DMelvinKaphan (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I thought you had retired when I first noticed this article. The problem is that now you have information in the lead that is not presented in the article body. I would say that is why the lead got moved in the first place. Think of the two as separate entities. The lead is like an abstract and summarises the whole article, while all the details are in the body. Both should stand on their own. Maybe you could think of a better section header than History in this version and then add a summary at the top. It would not need to be long, maybe a couple of sentences covering the more important points. I would do it myself, but I am not very familiar with this topic. I could give it a go if you want and you could fix up any issues.

By data sheet do you mean the infobox to the top right? As far as Good articles go we don't really care whether they are included or not (i.e they are not part of the critria). So there will be no complaints from me if it is removed. However I must warn you that some editors feel strongly about them both ways and it is one of the many stupid things that gets argued over pedantically. AIRcorn (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a quick shot, let me know if you think that works. Yes, that's what I was referring to when I said data sheet. The reason being that I see the topic of this article being the organic functional group "oxaziridine". Having the infobox for the molecule called oxaziridine sort of misrepresents the article. Most people that will visit this page will be looking for information on the oxaziridine derivatives that are used synthetically. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks good. I am happy to keep this as a Good article. Thanks for your work. As to the infobox, I will leave it up to you. As far as I am concerned it will not affect its status. AIRcorn (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]