GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Maplestrip ( talk · contribs) 06:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article today. It looks very good thus far, and haven't found any real issues in the first few paragraphs, but please allow me to finish examining it. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 06:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
After some improvements, the article now meets the GA criteria. Thank you very much for your swift response, 47.147.221.147! Congratulations on your GA and thank you for your hard work :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 18:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The following issues are keeping this article from reaching GA status. I shall give the nominator some time to improve things where possible. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 11:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"which it most notably shares with Schiaparelli crater to the north and Dawes crater to the east-northeast."– This is something that needs to be sourced, because why are these two craters specifically notable? Flaugergues is also a WP:N-notable crater nearby.
There are no particular issues with how the location of the crater is described in the "Context" section anymore. It describes the location and some of the larger notable features around it in a completely neutral and easily confirmable way. The complete removal of the HiRISE image does make me wonder if no source exists for this information anywhere, but regardless, I do not think it is a majorly important aspect for the article. I think the image would definitely need to be cleared up if you would want to bring this to FA. For now, everything is good! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 18:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Denning does seem subject to very little original writing. Most of the sources I can access are merely directory listings and the like. I am surprised that you managed to write such a good article on the feature despite this this, but it is a bit uncomfortable that most of the information we have on Denning also applies to the other craters in the Sinus Sabaeus quadrangle. I am not sure what this means for the article, honestly. Other than that, I have a few stray comments:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Maplestrip ( talk · contribs) 06:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article today. It looks very good thus far, and haven't found any real issues in the first few paragraphs, but please allow me to finish examining it. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 06:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
After some improvements, the article now meets the GA criteria. Thank you very much for your swift response, 47.147.221.147! Congratulations on your GA and thank you for your hard work :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 18:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The following issues are keeping this article from reaching GA status. I shall give the nominator some time to improve things where possible. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 11:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"which it most notably shares with Schiaparelli crater to the north and Dawes crater to the east-northeast."– This is something that needs to be sourced, because why are these two craters specifically notable? Flaugergues is also a WP:N-notable crater nearby.
There are no particular issues with how the location of the crater is described in the "Context" section anymore. It describes the location and some of the larger notable features around it in a completely neutral and easily confirmable way. The complete removal of the HiRISE image does make me wonder if no source exists for this information anywhere, but regardless, I do not think it is a majorly important aspect for the article. I think the image would definitely need to be cleared up if you would want to bring this to FA. For now, everything is good! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 18:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Denning does seem subject to very little original writing. Most of the sources I can access are merely directory listings and the like. I am surprised that you managed to write such a good article on the feature despite this this, but it is a bit uncomfortable that most of the information we have on Denning also applies to the other craters in the Sinus Sabaeus quadrangle. I am not sure what this means for the article, honestly. Other than that, I have a few stray comments: