Talk:Lithium aluminium hydride/GA1

GA Sweeps Review

The article was last reviewed in October of 2005, so it's time to re-review again to see if this still meets the Good Article criteria. It continues to be very well written, and appears quite complete. The only significant concern I have is for verifiability. While there are good references, there are still many sections that are unsourced: e.g. 'Inorganic reactions', 'Thermal decomposition', 'Solubility data', and 'Thermodynamic data'. This information is actually hard data, and really needs to be sourced. Some of it probably came from the 'further reading' items, which were also previously listed as 'general references'. However, "general references" are unacceptable and cannot be used -- information should be cited directly by inline citations instead, so that it is clear where the information came from.

Other than this issue, I think the article continues to meet the criteria. So I will put this on hold for the next 1-2 weeks or so, so that this can be addressed. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for a non-chemist the article would be excellent, but it is missing the following aspects that would be considered core for a chemist or a serious student of chemistry. The following come to mind:

discovery (by Schlessinger) with citation of the original paper
stoichiometry of its most importaant organic reactions (with amides, esters, water)
industrial prep (the one shown is not the one Ullmann's indicates)
modifications such as chiral derivatives
use in preparation of hydrides other than those of carbon (alane, silanes, copper, ...)
LiAlD4
relationship to hydrogen-storage

But again, this article is off to a good start. I hope to contribute to addressing some of the above.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of May 30, 2008, too much of this article is uncited. There are also lots of very short sections, and the overall organization of sections is poor. The article has been delisted from WP:GA. It can be renominated at WP:GAN once it meets all six criteria. I have also reassessed this back to B-class for WP:CHEM, due to the organizational and citation issues. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]