Talk:Near-Earth object/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mdob (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

This article has 9 sections (and 10 subsections), all of then extensive.
- covers both the history, threat and classification of NEOs.
- The 6 paragraphs summary before the contents is good:
  - the 1st paragraph (definition) is excellent
  - the 2nd paragraph (examples) is very good
  - the 4 other paragraphs aren't bad, but perhaps could be shortened;

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The risk/threat section covers the problem in a non-political, non-alarmist tone. Mdob (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

22 small, non-intrusive images Mdob (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

good illustrations, except for two in the top-righ-panel:
- File:Eros_rotation_Dec._3-4_2000.gif (makes my eyes hurt)
- the graph about Apollo asteroids (too big)

Mdob (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address the points you criticised later today. I must ask however: which graph do you mean in your last point ("graph about Apollo asteroids")? Perhaps the pie chart in the infobox? Rontombontom (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm done now. In the intro, I shortened paragraphs 4-6 (even merging 4 and 5), but I don't see how to shorten paragraph 3. In the infobox, I removed the rotating Eros one and moved the Itokawa photo from the "Exploratory missions" section in its place. I reduced the width of the entire infobox; the pie chart is now the smallest possible without a line wrap in the legend below it. In addition, in the "Projects to minimize the threat" section, I noticed that the details on the early history of the Spaceguard survey have been imprecise, so I re-worded and expanded it a bit, adding two new sources.

Does this address all your concerns? Rontombontom (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sir. Very good work. And You did it in less than 24 hours. Congratulations! Mdob (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You (we) now need to suggest an interesting factoid to ...Did You Know Mdob (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I made a DYK nomination, it was my first, I hope I did it right... Rontombontom (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]