Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This is a good piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
Comments in no particular order:
The citing is really the biggest issue. "... Brown came to suspect fraud." isn't cited, and it and most of what's in the "Reaction" section needs to be. "IAU protocol is that ..." isn't cited. "... accusing the IAU of political bias." isn't cited. And so on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Is anything happening to resolve the issues raised in this review? There were a couple of edits by the nominator in this direction on March 1, but nothing else. It's already been longer than the specified 7 days since the review was done for changes to be made. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been no further activity on this article, so I'm failing the GA. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This is a good piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
Comments in no particular order:
The citing is really the biggest issue. "... Brown came to suspect fraud." isn't cited, and it and most of what's in the "Reaction" section needs to be. "IAU protocol is that ..." isn't cited. "... accusing the IAU of political bias." isn't cited. And so on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Is anything happening to resolve the issues raised in this review? There were a couple of edits by the nominator in this direction on March 1, but nothing else. It's already been longer than the specified 7 days since the review was done for changes to be made. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been no further activity on this article, so I'm failing the GA. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)