Talk:Weinreb ketone synthesis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tea with toast   (talk)  03:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed
There are a few issues that need to be addressed before I can pass this article:
 * 1) Titles should be provided for the journal articles listed in the references.
 * 2) There might be a problem with consistency in the notation for one of the compounds mentioned in the "Prepartation" section. [MeO(Me)NH•HCl] is mentioned in the text, but the notation of the compound given in the diagram gives [MeONHMe·HCl]. I am assuming that this is the same compound, but the notation should be the same for consistency. Also, further in the article, the compound [MeNH(OMe)·HCl] is given. Does this refer to the same compound as well?

I will place this article on hold for about a week or so for these issues needing to be addressed. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (talk)  19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thanks for your time reviewing the article! I'll go ahead and fix those issues.
 * The journal names are a quick fix and I'll take care of that ASAP.
 * As for the three different ways of writing methoxymethylamine, all refer to the same compound and fixing it shouldn't be an issue either. However, is there one of the ways of writing the reagent that you think would be the best?
 * M.Levin 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So I went ahead and made the changes and chose MeO(Me)NH as the one way to refer to the reagent. I also made a few other minor changes and additions that I had been eyeing. I hope everything is up to par. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to take care of! M.Levin  23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Great job! -- Tea with toast  (talk)  03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)