Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chlorine/1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.'' I've put this article up for GA reassessment because of its severe lack of citations in many sections. Sorry, but the lack of citations is just too much (even less than bromine, which is a mere C-class). Nergaal has also commented that if this article was sent to GAR, it would probably be rerated as C, so I've been bold. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it does have more citations than Br. (But not many more.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To check this against the current GA criteria:

GA reassessment – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The referencing needs a lot of work. Thanks, Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * I really don't know, since there are so few citations. Some could be OR.
 * There's now only one paragraph with next to no references, so I'll put this on hold first. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
Hello? Anybody here? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello back. How have the references been going? F R E  Y W A  04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is much better. However, there are still huge areas of text (e.g. Organochlorine compounds) with next to no references. This article should really follow the "one ref per para" rule. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, nothing has been done for over a week. (I've put this on hold for too long.) I'll have to delist this until things get done. :-( Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently, the only former good articles about chemical elements are aluminium and chlorine. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow on to GAR
I've changed the tagging. That section links a main article organochloride with refs that should be helpful to supporting the section, but I don't have ready access to them right now. There may be helpful source material for the section in:
 * LeadSongDog come howl!  16:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LeadSongDog come howl!  16:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)