Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Iron(III) chloride/1

Iron(III) chloride

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted on 1b) of the GA criteria - the lead isn't satisfactory, as pointed out below, and there are issues with MOS:LAYOUT. Contributors didn't respond to pings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2005 and last reassessed in 2007. This article has an orange tag and some uncited material that needs to be cited. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Might take a few days. DMacks (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: can you give us an update? A quick glance at the article showns a lead that's a bit too short, some cn tags, and possibly an overreliance on lists rather than prose. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working. Currently organizing what was the long and mostly-uncited "other uses" list, which helped merge some into other prose sections, find cites for most. I will add an intro sentence or two for each theme there (now that I've figured out what the themes are!) for what can't easily be merged into other sections. I think I have some leads but not strongly-RS for most of the remaining ones, or could move them as side-notes for other well-sourced sections. I could put the bullet-points as a paragraph-style set of examples if GA folks prefer. "Lead a bit short" is an out-of-the-blue concern. While obviously many eyes each see different details, it feels like a discouragement/moved-goalpost when a major wave of GA-reassessments land, and only note certain problems, and then suddenly become an even much larger task to rescue. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for your dedication and I'm sorry I discouraged you.
  
  I've never felt lead expansion is too much work. Usually, you can copy the most important sentences for section not yet covered in the lead, and only do a small copyedit (~10 mins work). For an article like this, I expect a lead of two short paragraphs, not more. It is the part of the article that most people read, so it's quite important. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMacks, do you intend to work further on this article? Do you feel it meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. This weekend's project. 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

DMacks, do you intend to continue? It is fine to say no; I might try myself. As it is, though, I do feel this fails MOS:EMBED—the lists would be better suited as prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, I note you've been working on the article. Do you think it meets the GA criteria, and if not, do you intend to work to fix that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.