Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Methoxyflurane/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Issues seem resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
The second half of the third paragraph of the lead is not mentioned in the body. There is no explanation as to why this drug was withdrawn in the United States.
There are also several sections of the body which are not cited. Steelkamp (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Steelkamp Did you mention these issues on the talkpage, as is suggested on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, that is only a suggestion after all. Steelkamp (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- The second half of the third paragraph does not need to be mentioned in the body as it is cited in the lead. I do not believe this is against any of the GA criteria, please let me know which GA criteria that violates.
- I don't believe that the lack of explanation is a violation of any GA criteria. However it could easily be added to the history.
- I'll take a go at finding citations for the unsourced parts. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say the lack of explanation fails the broad in its coverage criteria. It leaves the reader with questions that aren't answered by the article. The good article criteria also mentions Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which means the lack of explanation in the body and only the lead is an issue under the criteria as well. Steelkamp (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, where in WP:MOSLEAD does it say that all text in the lead must be in the body, I'm having a hard time finding that. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Steelkamp I have fixed all the issues that were against GA criteria. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:CREATELEAD,
There should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the [body of the] article
. Hence, I have added a Legal status section that now supports the second half of the third paragraph in the lead. Boghog (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)- Thank you boghog for adding that, as I belive that all of the nominators issues are addressed now. However for future cases, the GA criteria do not require this, it is just preferred, as WP:MOSLEAD does not require this. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I believe this is Steelkamp's interpretation of Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article., in that the opposite is also true. Reconrabbit 14:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you boghog for adding that, as I belive that all of the nominators issues are addressed now. However for future cases, the GA criteria do not require this, it is just preferred, as WP:MOSLEAD does not require this. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:CREATELEAD,
- I'd say the lack of explanation fails the broad in its coverage criteria. It leaves the reader with questions that aren't answered by the article. The good article criteria also mentions Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which means the lack of explanation in the body and only the lead is an issue under the criteria as well. Steelkamp (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2025 (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.