Jump to content

Talk:Orion Nebula/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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

 Doing...This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. --ErgoSumtalktrib 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue I see is the introduction is too short (MOS:INTRO#Length). Although it might not be a big enough issue to disqualify it for GA status. Reference link #10 is dead, there is an archive version available, but it simply links to an abstract. I assume this article was in the print version of Sky and Telescope? If so, a link is not absolutely required, although an ISBN or some other identifier should prove useful. These are just superficial issues I see so far, I haven't given the article a full read yet. --ErgoSumtalktrib 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    Intro length is technically good enough, although it fails to encompass a thorough summary of the entire article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Citations are a little thin, but sufficient.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Overall a pretty good article, I think this one has maintained a high standard. I couldn't find any typos and that is always a good sign. This article will retain GA status. --ErgoSumtalktrib 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review.—RJH (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]