# Talk:Oxaziridine

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oxaziridine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
This reads like it was written by a professional. Very well done.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 
All your resources appear to be major chemical journals, which easily pass the requirements for notability and verifiability.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Broad coverage? Definitely!
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Placement of images is used perfectly to illustrate the reactions discussed.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Easily Passed. Though it addresses a complex topic, this article covers all of the most important reactions and unique properties of this class of chemicals.For further improvement, I would suggest the addition of a computer-generated 3-D structure of a sample Oxaziridine, to illustrate the unique C-N-O triangle spatially.

Reviewer: Spinach Dip 06:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The original lead was converted into a history section, which now contains more than history. Now the lead is too short and fails WP:Lead, part of the Good article criteria. I though about reverting, but then there will be information in the lead not covered in the article. I don't have the skills to fix this myself and the original contributor hasn't edited for a while so I am hoping someone is watching this who can fix it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Aircorn,  just saw this note after having reverted it in response to the revision discussion page.  I now see what you mean about there being info in the lead that's not in the main article.  I think it's pretty good as is.  If you let me know specifically what you think should be changed, I could address that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMelvinKaphan (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)