Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aldol reaction/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dr. Blofeld (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) →Aldol reaction: close |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
*'''Delist''': inappropriate tone, too many pictures, and lack of references.--[[User:Jarodalien|Jarodalien]] ([[User talk:Jarodalien|talk]]) 03:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Delist''': inappropriate tone, too many pictures, and lack of references.--[[User:Jarodalien|Jarodalien]] ([[User talk:Jarodalien|talk]]) 03:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delist''' Way off current standards.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Delist''' Way off current standards.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{FARClosed|delisted}} [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:33, 9 April 2015
Aldol reaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Chemistry
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because, I think this article doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's a lot paragraphs or sentence need additional footnotes, I list some problems at talk page 2 weeks before, but still didn't saw anything happen. Consider this article are already been featured for more than 8 years, I think is time to have a good review here. FAC nominator was not active since early June 2007.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Obviously written by a knowledgeable editor, but woefully lacking citations and reads very much like it was written closely from a textbook. Needs a lot of attention from a subject matter expert. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: On a quick skim, I don't see anything in here up to the modern methods section that couldn't be cited to a good textbook on the subject. All the specific numbers, selectivities, etc. in the images might be a challenge. The tone of the prose is a little overly didactic but I think that wasn't uncommon in technical articles at the time this was promoted; I wrote most of (since-defeatured) sequence alignment around then and it took a similar approach. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review mostly concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delist. Tagged as needing additional references in March 2015. Tagged for vague or ambiguous prose in April 2011. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delist this just does not meet modern standards for verifiability. Maralia (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delist: inappropriate tone, too many pictures, and lack of references.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delist Way off current standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)