![]() | Mensa (constellation) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 29, 2018. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AhmadLX ( talk · contribs) 13:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this-- AhmadLX ( talk) 13:09, 15 May 2018 (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. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead okay, layout perfect, free of other things. |
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. | Well referenced. |
![]() |
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 won't hold Pass on this, but it should be done nevertheless.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything based on reliable sources. Only routine calculations (e.g. distance from parallax). So okay. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No violations found with Earwigs, url comparison, and manual checking of some sources. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | * |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Well focused. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not subject to bias in the first place, due to nature of the topic. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No warring. |
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. | All images licensed properly. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Just an extra thing: may be this image will be an add to text in regard of LMC thing; it is not clear in either of the images already present. Just an opinion :-/ |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Meets criteria after some work has been done. |
Something's gone wrong here...van Leeuwen is only showing 14 objects (?!) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
"Another myth relating to its dangers comes from Sinbad the Sailor, an Arabic folk hero who saw it as a magnet pulling his ships to the bottom of the sea," says the text, referencing a book by Julias Staal. Does anyone have any idea how Sinbad might have known about Table Mountain or, for that matter, magnetism? This sounds like another of Staal's dodgy 'myths' for which he is the only source. Unless anyone can find an independent and reliable authority, I propose to delete this sentence. Skeptic2 ( talk) 11:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Mensa (constellation) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 29, 2018. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AhmadLX ( talk · contribs) 13:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this-- AhmadLX ( talk) 13:09, 15 May 2018 (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. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead okay, layout perfect, free of other things. |
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. | Well referenced. |
![]() |
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 won't hold Pass on this, but it should be done nevertheless.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything based on reliable sources. Only routine calculations (e.g. distance from parallax). So okay. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No violations found with Earwigs, url comparison, and manual checking of some sources. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | * |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Well focused. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not subject to bias in the first place, due to nature of the topic. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No warring. |
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. | All images licensed properly. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Just an extra thing: may be this image will be an add to text in regard of LMC thing; it is not clear in either of the images already present. Just an opinion :-/ |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Meets criteria after some work has been done. |
Something's gone wrong here...van Leeuwen is only showing 14 objects (?!) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
"Another myth relating to its dangers comes from Sinbad the Sailor, an Arabic folk hero who saw it as a magnet pulling his ships to the bottom of the sea," says the text, referencing a book by Julias Staal. Does anyone have any idea how Sinbad might have known about Table Mountain or, for that matter, magnetism? This sounds like another of Staal's dodgy 'myths' for which he is the only source. Unless anyone can find an independent and reliable authority, I propose to delete this sentence. Skeptic2 ( talk) 11:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)