Talk:Tin(II) chloride/GA1

GA Sweeps Review

As a part of WikiProject Good Articles' Sweeps process, we are reviewing all older GAs to see if they still meet the existing Good Article criteria. This article was promoted to GA on December 9, 2005 by Walkerma. Unfortunately, it appears that only the {{GA}} tag was added to the talk page as I am unable to find evidence that a full review was conducted.

Here is how the article matches up against the current GA criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article complies with the manual of style, but the prose is poor. I find it to be too technical, and not very helpful to a reader without an extensive science or chemistry background. The chemical properties section really doesn't have a very good opening or summary itself, and goes right into the details, with heavy dependence on equations.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I am going to pass this on the verifiability criterion due to its inline citations & evidence of additional general references. I don't see any evidence of WP:OR, although it would be much better if inline citations were used over the general references -- that way, it would be much more clear where information is coming from, and easier to verify specific claims. I don't think the article would pass a featured article review with this, but I think it's acceptable for GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article doesn't appear complete. Most sections are very short, and more work is needed to organize the information and improve its readability and organization. The lead section is also too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article. Most individual sections don't have very good introductions themselves, and jump right into technical details, which would tend to scare off inexperienced readers. There's no information in here about hazards or safety precautions. There's nothing in the article about its discovery.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't see any major WP:NPOV issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   There's not a whole lot of edits with the article overall. I don't see any major stability issues.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images are tagged appropriately, though some of them are sized too large. The images overall don't connect well with text in the article; instead, they appear to have been placed in the article as a substitute for providing good text, instead of as a complement to a good, well-written section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Mostly due to criteria #1 and #3, as well as partially #6 (though the image issue mentioned has probably more to do with prose or completeness), I don't think the article meets the GA criteria. I am also choosing to delist due to the fact that there has not been a proper GA review done in the past, and instead, it appears that the GA tag was simply added with no comments (or even an edit summary). Once the article is improved, it can be renominated at WP:GAN to be relisted. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)