Talk:Isolichenan/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting topic within WP:CHEMISTRY.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

• Well written

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout etc.

• Verifiable

it contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research; and

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• Broad in its coverage

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

• Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Illustrated

images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 98% of authorship is one user, Esculenta. It is currently ranked a B class article.

• The article is illustrated by relevant images that are marked as being licensed in the public domain.

• The lead section is clear and written in an appropriate style for an interested audience. It conforms to WP:SUMMARY and provides the level of information needed for a non-expert to understand the topic.

• The article contains red links, such as Partial acid hydrolysis, and these are consistent with WP:WIP.

• References follow WP:SCIRS, but are dominated by primary sources. It would be good to have more secondary sources like Aspinall, 2016, and Galun, 2019, to ensure there is no violation of WP:PRIMARY. As a personal preference, I like to have a separate list of citations and works as I think it makes it easier to read and also allows exact pages in journals to be cited.

• I moved two of the citations to a "Cited literature" subsection of "Citations" so that I could cite specific page number's in a couple of long page-range sources. I think the others are ok as is, because the page ranges are not so long. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please add a year to Berzelius.

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• "This technique uses the successive steps of periodate oxidation, borohydride reduction and mild acid hydrolysis in which acetal (but not glucosidic linkages), are hydrolysed" needs rewording. It currently reads as if there needs to be number agreement between the noun "acetal' and the verb "are" and it is not clear at which stage the hydrolysis takes place.

• Clarified. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Capitalise another in "another study suggests".

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• The subclauses in "The relatively weak intensity of the iodine-staining reaction of isolichenan, compared with for example amylose (a linear α-(1→4)-linked glucan and the major component of starch), is thought to be a result of its preponderance of (1→3) linkages." are unclear. I suggest using commas around "for example" and "a linear α-(1→4)-linked glucan and the major component of starch" or rewording.

• Now clarified (hopefully). Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest you think about potentially submitting something from this to Did you know once it is a GA. If so, I suggest it might to worth ensuring that is in the lead as well as the body.

• @Esculenta: Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. simongraham (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Simongraham: Thanks for taking the time to review this. I hope these edits will address your helpful recommendations. Esculenta (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Esculenta: Excellent work. This is a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.