Talk:Alexander MacFarlane (astronomer)

Alexander MacFarlane (astronomer) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 27, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Article credibly indicates importance or significance referred to in sources and highlighted in article ("one of the best mathematicians of the age", links to the slave trade and benefactor of University of Glasgow) --SankofaBird (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander MacFarlane (judge)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk · contribs) 08:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-written and concise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues; I did go ahead and reformat the post-nominal with Template:Post-nominals.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues; gives a neutral and fair assessment of the subject's dealings in slavery in a way which is neither dismissive nor moralizing.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	No issues.

I will get to this sometime tonight.

Apologies for getting to this late.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 12:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]