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

• I think this article is out of shape. A major issue below:
  • More sources are needed.
• I will fix a few other issues later. I would quickfail, but in the spirit of WP:AGF I'll give you a few days to do so.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is extremely deficient in coverage. For such an important chemical there is a huge amount written on the topic, so even in summary form there should be a lot more here. A C class rating is what it should get. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on WP:GAR, an individual reassessment, which this is, ideally has as a goal of taking a good article that is deficient and finding editors to work on it so it meets the GA criteria. This means notifying frequent editors and also the relevant WikiProject(s). I don't see any regular editors, but WP:WikiProject Chemicals is certainly available. What I propose we do is make a short list of the most pressing issues and see whether anyone from the project is willing to take on upgrading the article; if so, then we can continue the reassessment, which will basically end up like a regular GA review. Problems that need to be addressed include:

• the article's lead section does not seem to cover all of the major sections in the article, and seems a bit threadbare (see WP:LEAD, one of the GA "well written" criteria).
• as Tomandjerry211 noted above, the article is very thin on inline source citations. The entire Properties section is unsourced, as are the Occurrence and Water treatment subsections, the last half of both Food and Medicine, and the bulk of Miscellaneous applications. This runs afoul of the "verifiability" criteria.
• per Graeme Bartlett, the article falls short of the GA "broad in its coverage" criteria
• there are also prose issues, such as the second paragraph under deicing, which is a partial sentence. (Another of the "well-written" criteria.)

Tomandjerry211, Graeme Bartlett, I'm going to notify the WikiProject in a few hours; if there are any other issues you'd like to highlight, please add them to the above list. We should give the standard seven days for work to start; if none does, then it will be time to consider closing the reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no edits made to the article since the reassessment resumed, and no sign of interest from the WikiProject. I am therefore closing this reassessment as "delisted". Once the issues listed above have been addressed, the article can always be renominated at WP:GAN, but I would advise getting a peer review first, as there may be other issues that would have been discovered if a more thorough examination had been done. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]