Talk:10 Hygiea/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Initially, it looks very good. I will be making some comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are you using a consistent reference format?

What exactly do you mean? All the refs are {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} with one exception Nergaal (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Could you link perihelion in the text? (I noticed later that you have it linked in the template.)
• "This is much more than for the other objects in the "big four", the dwarf planet Ceres and the asteroids 2 Pallas and 4 Vesta." - needs a colon rather than a semicolon if you mean that the "big four" are the following bodies listed.
• "Aside from being the smallest of the four, another important factor to this end is Hygiea's..." - to what end?
• There are statements in Orbit and rotation that are unreferenced.

How does it look now? Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)