Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chlorine/1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I've put this article up for GA reassessment because of its severe lack of citations in many sections. Sorry, but the lack of citations is just too much (even less than bromine, which is a mere C-class). Nergaal has also commented that if this article was sent to GAR, it would probably be rerated as C, so I've been bold. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now it does have more citations than Br. (But not many more.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
To check this against the current GA criteria:
GA reassessment – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- I really don't know, since there are so few citations. Some could be OR.
- There's now only one paragraph with next to no references, so I'll put this on hold first. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't know, since there are so few citations. Some could be OR.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
The referencing needs a lot of work. Thanks, Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Hello? Anybody here? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hello back. How have the references been going? FREYWA 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is much better. However, there are still huge areas of text (e.g. Organochlorine compounds) with next to no references. This article should really follow the "one ref per para" rule. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, nothing has been done for over a week. (I've put this on hold for too long.) I'll have to delist this until things get done. :-( Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Currently, the only former good articles about chemical elements are aluminium and chlorine. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, nothing has been done for over a week. (I've put this on hold for too long.) I'll have to delist this until things get done. :-( Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is much better. However, there are still huge areas of text (e.g. Organochlorine compounds) with next to no references. This article should really follow the "one ref per para" rule. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Follow on to GAR
[edit]I've changed the tagging. That section links a main article organochloride with refs that should be helpful to supporting the section, but I don't have ready access to them right now. There may be helpful source material for the section in:
- De la Mare, Peter Bernard David (1976). Electrophilic Halogenation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521290142.
- Taylor, Roger (1990). Electrophilic Aromatic Substitution. Chichester: Wiley. p. 362. ISBN 9780471924821. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)