Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Assessment/A-class review 2009/Copper(I) chloride

Disclaimer: I wrote the original article, and much of the current content came from me. However, this was almost five years ago, and so I can be at least semi-objective in this review. I'd still like to see a second opinion!

The article looks currently to be a good B-Class. Smokefoot has done some serious editing on the article, which makes me feel a lot happier about it! It does cover the main points pretty well, and those points are referenced to reliable sources (though a couple of refs had been "lost" until tonight because lack of ref names). Although the article is short, that should per se preclude the possibility of A-Class. I think even if the article were FA it would be a pretty short one, yet there are some useful things that could be added. So I'd like to put this under A-Class probation, and I'll demote it in a month or so if I don't think we've addressed the shortcomings - unless others can convince me otherwise! Walkerma (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the impression (just from my general reading as a working chemist who reads the literature) that Cu(I) compounds (including CuCl) are becoming more widely used in organic chemistry. I will try to add a few of these over the coming week or so, including Markó's 2004 Angewandte paper on use of CuCl in aerobic oxidation of alcohols.
 * We cover the chemical properties somewhat, but the physical properties are not really discussed - things like the nature of the bonding, etc.
 * Some of our coverage of other uses is rather basic. I think we could expand this somewhat, after a trip to the library.


 * That five years ago this qualified as A-Class, I can understand. Then there were limited articles about chemicals about, and this one did meet the then requirements, limited as they were. But nowadays, it is indeed too short about the following sections to grade better than B-Class. I'll do the re-classification for you, if prefer. And put it up as "ACR=yes" in the template too.


 * Adding a section on History (my personal favorite)
 * A bit more on Chemistry
 * A bit more on Use or Applications
 * Adding a section on Production methods and commercial/industrial information
 * Adding a section on Safety and/or Precautions
 * Chembox seems good
 * References for the info that's there is good.


 * The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
 * 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 140 mg, use 140 mg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 140&amp;nbsp;mg.[?]
 * 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 100 mL.
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), ization (A) (British: isation), catalyze (A) (British: catalyse), catalyse (B) (American: catalyze), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
 * 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)  23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)