Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 23:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in chemistry, especially organic chemistry. The assessment is partly based on how other organic chemistry articles were assessed. Please feel free to request a second opinion if you feel that mine was not adequate.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   However, I'm not too sure about the sentence in the header saying that this is sometimes erroneously called dioxin; perhaps elaborate on that with perhaps a 3-5-sentence paragraph. Insufficient reason to say "no" here (this is not FA, though it's close to FA, in my opinion).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   (see above)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It being mainly about the compound's toxicity is in line with DUE, as most reliable coverage for the general public about it is about toxicity.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Perhaps add a picture of the free compound, though I know that's difficult to obtain. The Yuschenko image is particularly dramatic.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I do not see any outstanding issues with this article, and I like the prose.