GA Review edit

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

Failed "good article" nomination edit

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 2, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Introduction fails to either summarise the article or describe clearly what the article is about
It is not clear what the section on "Analytical techniques used for characterizing lipids" has to do with the article topic, seems to belong in a much more general article
The sections under "Research areas" are very opaque, they seem to be abstracts of particular papers, rather than a general review of the topic
The "Conclusion" section should be merged with the introduction.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. 18:07, 2 July 2009‎ TimVickers (talk · contribs)