Talk:2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 23:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in chemistry, especially organic chemistry. The assessment is partly based on how other organic chemistry articles were assessed. Please feel free to request a second opinion if you feel that mine was not adequate.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * However, I'm not too sure about the sentence in the header saying that this is sometimes erroneously called dioxin; perhaps elaborate on that with perhaps a 3-5-sentence paragraph. Insufficient reason to say "no" here (this is not FA, though it's close to FA, in my opinion).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * (see above)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It being mainly about the compound's toxicity is in line with DUE, as most reliable coverage for the general public about it is about toxicity.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Perhaps add a picture of the free compound, though I know that's difficult to obtain. The Yuschenko image is particularly dramatic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I do not see any outstanding issues with this article, and I like the prose.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I do not see any outstanding issues with this article, and I like the prose.