The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].
After the GA review and peer review of this article, in which I've been told that this article is both comprehensive and and understandable, I'm submitting this for an FA review. I also believe that it meets the FA criteria. It's rather short, but as I mentioned, people, including those who are passionate about the subject matter as seen at the peer review believe that it is comprehensive. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Feel free to disagree with anything I say—not all of it is necessary for FA.
——— Curly Turkey ( gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Support Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
It looks like a decent article overall (though maybe it could go into more depth about the historical significance of it). I've made a few tweaks here and there while looking over it. All the references are reliable, as they are written by experts in the field or are located in reputable databases. The content cited to Reference 2 does not appear in Reference 2 and some of the content cited to Reference 6 a does not appear in ref 6. Reference 17 also appears to be about the wrong star. --
Jakob (
talk) (Please comment on
my editor review.) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].
After the GA review and peer review of this article, in which I've been told that this article is both comprehensive and and understandable, I'm submitting this for an FA review. I also believe that it meets the FA criteria. It's rather short, but as I mentioned, people, including those who are passionate about the subject matter as seen at the peer review believe that it is comprehensive. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Feel free to disagree with anything I say—not all of it is necessary for FA.
——— Curly Turkey ( gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Support Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
It looks like a decent article overall (though maybe it could go into more depth about the historical significance of it). I've made a few tweaks here and there while looking over it. All the references are reliable, as they are written by experts in the field or are located in reputable databases. The content cited to Reference 2 does not appear in Reference 2 and some of the content cited to Reference 6 a does not appear in ref 6. Reference 17 also appears to be about the wrong star. --
Jakob (
talk) (Please comment on
my editor review.) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
reply