Talk:Rhodium(III) chloride/GA1

GA Sweeps

As a part of WikiProject Good Articles Sweeps process, we are going through all older GA articles to see if they currently meet the Good Article criteria or not. I see from this article's history that it was promoted by Walkerma on December 9, 2005. There is no evidence that an actual review was conducted at the time, as it appears that the {{GA}} tag was simply added to the article's talk page.

Based on the current version of the article, here is how it stands up against the six GA criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose and organization of the article is reasonably well written. The article does comply with the manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   While I don't doubt the reliability of the information per se, the article itself has too few citations, and it's not clear where some of the information is coming from. Additional citations are also necessary to insure that the information in this article is not plagiarized or copied verbatim from other sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is incomplete. While I think the number of sections is good, most sections are very, very short, indicating issues with completeness. The lead section is also too short, and doesn't adequately summarize the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No WP:NPOV issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   The article is stable. Very few recent edits, in fact.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images meet the criteria.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am going to delist this on account of inadequate reference citations and completeness issues (criteria #2 and #3). It also appears that a proper review was never done in the first place. To be listed at WP:GA, the article should be nominated for review at WP:GAN. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)