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

Iron(III) chloride

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Iron(III)_chloride/1&action=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)

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)
 * Working on it. Might take a few days. DMacks (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hi, 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)
 * Yup. This weekend's project. 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)