Talk:Trifluoroperacetic acid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford (talk · contribs) 12:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As the amendments have been made and it is generally the case that it is written well this criterion is met; I am aware of three errors which I would request be fixed. 1) In Properties there is a sentence which could be rephrased with "It is not commercially available, but can be stored for several weeks at −20 °C," in my opinion reading better 2) Under the preparation I believe that it should read "when the presence of water leads to." 3) In the section on Uses sub-section on Epoxidation the Organic Chemist and the reaction named after him are inconsistent in the spelling of his name, while there is a lack of consistency in the field it should be consistent in the same article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article is well edited and complies with the manual of style guidelines, as necessary.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	It appears well referenced, focusing on the scientific research where it has been reported.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	It is sufficiently cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I can not see places where ones own research could have been placed, or has been. It is well referenced and makes sense while reading.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	On reviewing the material no such violations are present.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It adresses the main aspects of the topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It does not contain unnecessary digressions or deviations and remains relevant to the topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It presents information in an impartial and scientific manner throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The work is the own work of the authors, one piece is public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The media is necessary to facilitate the reading of the article
	7. Overall assessment.	With the minor changes made this article meets the standards of a good article.
Response from nominator Thank you, AlastairJHannaford, for the review. Regarding your three points: DMacks has made this edit to clarify the point being made – that you can't simply buy trifluoroperacetic acid, but you can make it easily enough and store it for several weeks so long as it is kept cold enough. Correction made as suggested. I have altered the article to avoid the spelling question arising while also clarifying the synthesis. DMacks also made a change to address the reviewer's concern, if my change is seen as inadequate. Please comment on anything else that needs to be addressed. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, I have amended my review. AlastairJHannaford (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks to both of you! DMacks (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]