Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/List of A-Class articles
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Assessment/A-class review 2009 for 2009 review work.
The following articles have been classified as A-Class in the worklist of WP:Chem. Briefly, the {{chem A-Class}} distinctive indicates:
- well written and complete
- appropriately sectioned
- full chembox infobox (or better)
- well drawn picture or photograph
- sufficient external references (one can be enough)
This page contains the current discussion and peer-review of recommended articles. Closed discussions have been archived here.
Proposal of articles for upgrading to A-Class
[edit]The following articles are currently classified as B-Class. Nonetheless, they are so complete that they may be compliant to A-Class requirements. Their classification is here for peer review. If you need support with writing an article you can always follow the Wikipedia Peer Review Process. When sufficient support for re-classification is listed here, the article will duly be moved to A-Class.
After the recent spur of edit by Martin and myself, I propose it here for A-Class. When agreed, I'll throw it for FAC too. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
- Three days without oppose: done. What do you mean, autocratic Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC).
I did a lot of upgrades on this last year - is it A-Class yet? If not, what remains to be done? Walkerma 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Close. Apart from rather short Uses paragraphs, the other things are rather small technical things. The peerreviewer picks these up easily, and are mostly nothing that some night hours of editing labour can't solve. However, in my humble opinion, an A-Class article ought not have incompliance to our own wikipedia guidelines. Here the issues!
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), flavour (B) (American: flavor), aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), routing (A) (British: routeing), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 11 additive terms, a bit too much.
- You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is A-class material. If not, what needs to be improved? CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent to see that (at last) also someone else proposes a good article for Chemicals/A-Class here! Asparin indeed seems a good article. It does need some technical points to be addressed as pointed out by comments on its Talk page.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
- You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 35 mg, use 35 mg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 35 mg.[?] - Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 150 mg.
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
- The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)