Talk:Hexamethylbenzene/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 03:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a very interesting, complete, and well-referenced article that I shall be very happy to rescue from its eight-and-a-half-month wait for a review. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- (I will probably have more time to do the review tomorrow, or failing that over the weekend, but for now I have done a preliminary read-through and have found it very engaging. If it is a tad technical for the average reader, that probably cannot be helped without losing information, and there is already some information that they can sink their teeth into first.) Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Double sharp, I do have a tendency to prefer technically-precise language, but I also recognise that WP has an audience with a broad range of backgrounds, and I am happy to redraft / modify sections to try to improve accessibility. Please just point out where you think it is desirable. EdChem (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Double sharp: FYI, the expansion of this article was a collaborative effort from me and DMacks, and I think the GA credit (assuming it passes, of course) probably belongs to both of us. EdChem (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- I have read through the prose, and I find that if one reads it paying a reasonable amount of attention, it is actually very clear, with helpful links provided for the not so chemistry-savvy. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I feel quite confident in awarding a richly deserved green plus for this extremely enjoyable read. Thank you, EdChem and DMacks! (I think the original message only went to you because you were the nominator; I'll be sure to inform DMacks as well.) Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)