GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Saskoiler ( talk · contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. --
Saskoiler (
talk)
21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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. | Overall, the prose is clear, and there are no major problems. I have made several suggestions below (see: Prose)
Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead: The lead section has an appropriate length for an article of this size/nature. I like that it follows a structure consistent with many other constellation articles, with 1st paragraph devoted to naming/history/location, and the 2nd paragraph devoted to characteristics of the stars. I have one question (see below: Lead) about the lead content.
Layout: The article is appropriately divided into sections (e.g. History, Characteristics, Notable Features), and these sections are consistent with other constellation articles (including several featured articles). The infobox is a valuable addition, and also consistent with other constellation articles. Reference sections and bottom matter are all good. I have a question about the categorization (see below: Categories). Words to watch: All okay Fiction: n/a List incorporation: n/a Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed. |
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. | There is a "References" section with a list of 43 citations and 4 separately described sources. |
![]() |
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). | I checked every source that I had access to. For each one, I verified (to the best of my ability) the facts and statistics being supported. With only a few exceptions, I found that the citations did accurately support this article. Those exceptions are noted below (in Verifiability), and have already been addressed since I last worked on this review.
Citations are from reliable sources: academic papers, books, high-quality astronomy sites, etc. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article contains no original research. (There were a couple of exceptions noted below, but they have already been addressed. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There is no discernible trace of plagiarism or copyright violations. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main aspects of the topic have been addressed. I compared the sections of this article with five other randomly-selected constellation articles (all FA-class), and this one has similar sections and covers similar aspects of the overall topic. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | This article stays focused. There are no off-topic tangents. The level of depth is balanced across sections appropriately. Again, I compared loosely to the five other constellation articles. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is written in a neutral point of view. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is stable. There's no hint of an edit war or content dispute. |
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. | There are four images accompanying this article. All four are tagged with a suitable copyright status. One is in the public domain, two are by-attribution, and one is attribution-sharealike. All is good. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All four images are highly relevant to the topic, and enhance the article significantly. Three have suitable captions, while the fourth is used suitably in the upper-right infobox. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Overall, this is a very well-researched article. I have learned a great deal by reading it and following up in some of the citations. When the items below are addressed, I think this will be worthy of "good article" status.
Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed. I believe that this article now meets the good article criteria, and I am marking this review as "passed". Congratulations to all contributers. |
The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.
Verifiability
Lead
Categories
Prose
-- Saskoiler ( talk) 21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I've read through all of the changes. I was delighted to see that you acted on many of my suggestions as-is. In cases where you deviated, I find your alternate solution either better or a suitable compromise. I'm passing this GA review.
Suggestions for FAC
As I have only recently submitted my very first FAC article and am still working through the process, I am certainly not an expert. (That's why I like doing GA reviews... I'm learning much from others.) However, based on my understanding of the criteria, here are a few actions I would pursue if I were trying to push this Antlia article to be one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer":
That's it. I hope I've helped to improve this article. Good luck with the pursuit of FA status. Saskoiler ( talk) 03:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Saskoiler ( talk · contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. --
Saskoiler (
talk)
21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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. | Overall, the prose is clear, and there are no major problems. I have made several suggestions below (see: Prose)
Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead: The lead section has an appropriate length for an article of this size/nature. I like that it follows a structure consistent with many other constellation articles, with 1st paragraph devoted to naming/history/location, and the 2nd paragraph devoted to characteristics of the stars. I have one question (see below: Lead) about the lead content.
Layout: The article is appropriately divided into sections (e.g. History, Characteristics, Notable Features), and these sections are consistent with other constellation articles (including several featured articles). The infobox is a valuable addition, and also consistent with other constellation articles. Reference sections and bottom matter are all good. I have a question about the categorization (see below: Categories). Words to watch: All okay Fiction: n/a List incorporation: n/a Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed. |
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. | There is a "References" section with a list of 43 citations and 4 separately described sources. |
![]() |
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). | I checked every source that I had access to. For each one, I verified (to the best of my ability) the facts and statistics being supported. With only a few exceptions, I found that the citations did accurately support this article. Those exceptions are noted below (in Verifiability), and have already been addressed since I last worked on this review.
Citations are from reliable sources: academic papers, books, high-quality astronomy sites, etc. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article contains no original research. (There were a couple of exceptions noted below, but they have already been addressed. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There is no discernible trace of plagiarism or copyright violations. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main aspects of the topic have been addressed. I compared the sections of this article with five other randomly-selected constellation articles (all FA-class), and this one has similar sections and covers similar aspects of the overall topic. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | This article stays focused. There are no off-topic tangents. The level of depth is balanced across sections appropriately. Again, I compared loosely to the five other constellation articles. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is written in a neutral point of view. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is stable. There's no hint of an edit war or content dispute. |
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. | There are four images accompanying this article. All four are tagged with a suitable copyright status. One is in the public domain, two are by-attribution, and one is attribution-sharealike. All is good. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All four images are highly relevant to the topic, and enhance the article significantly. Three have suitable captions, while the fourth is used suitably in the upper-right infobox. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Overall, this is a very well-researched article. I have learned a great deal by reading it and following up in some of the citations. When the items below are addressed, I think this will be worthy of "good article" status.
Update: The questions and suggestions have all been satisfactorily addressed. I believe that this article now meets the good article criteria, and I am marking this review as "passed". Congratulations to all contributers. |
The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.
Verifiability
Lead
Categories
Prose
-- Saskoiler ( talk) 21:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I've read through all of the changes. I was delighted to see that you acted on many of my suggestions as-is. In cases where you deviated, I find your alternate solution either better or a suitable compromise. I'm passing this GA review.
Suggestions for FAC
As I have only recently submitted my very first FAC article and am still working through the process, I am certainly not an expert. (That's why I like doing GA reviews... I'm learning much from others.) However, based on my understanding of the criteria, here are a few actions I would pursue if I were trying to push this Antlia article to be one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer":
That's it. I hope I've helped to improve this article. Good luck with the pursuit of FA status. Saskoiler ( talk) 03:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)