Jump to content

Talk:Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012

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

What time?

[edit]

I'm sure there are many people that will be reading about this awesome event, but would be interested to know specifically what time it's going to happen in their local area. Perhaps someone could either post a chart giving times by location, or a link to a site that lists what time the event will occur in their area? I've tried to find such a site, but couldn't find anything yet. Zul32 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure if this will help you but I found a website that at least shows when and where for the USA. Go to accuweather.com click the 'weather for sunday's solar eclipse' link, down where it says SEE ALSO click the 'when, where to watch sunday's solar eclipse across the US' link. 174.47.128.253 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annularity not visible from Canada

[edit]

The article text includes Canada as being in the path of annularity. I do not see it in the map provided. This inaccuracy should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.190.178 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a photo

[edit]

I added a photo of the annular solar eclipse of 20 May 2011 today. I saw it on Flickr this morning. I'm somewhat of a novice with this, hope I did it correctly. I uploaded the image file to Commons, included CC license, other info, categorized it etc., then inserted it here. I hope that was acceptable, and done correctly! --FeralOink (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the image was Creative Commons/by-nc-nd/2.0 instead of CC/by/2.0, so it is gone. --FeralOink (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ultimograph5 (talk · contribs) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Starting to review this one as well. Ultimograph5 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Well written, clear and concise. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Complies. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References where necessary. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All citations are reliable. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) None found. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No plagiarism. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Major aspects (and minor ones) all covered. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Focused. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Neutral. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Stable. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All is fine here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Appropriate images. While there are a large amount of them, they provide an in-depth view to readers of what the event looked like. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass I will pass this. I think it meets the standard, but maybe cut down on the photos.

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]