Talk:2020 BX12/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Footlessmouse (talk · contribs) 03:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the submission, User:Nrco0e, I am reviewing the article now. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is clear and concise, several things I would personally reword, but nothing rising to the level of interfering with the nomination. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No spelling errors (article imported into Microsoft Word for spell check). Footlessmouse (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No grammar errors (both using Microsoft word and critical reading). Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Fully complies with MOS:LEAD, accurate and short summary of article, reliably sourced, no information present not in body, is accessible. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully complies with MOS:LAYOUT, only 8 sections, 2 of which are broken into subsections. MOS:ORDER is followed, paragraphs and appendices are correct. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complies with MOS:WTW, some words from list are used (like in almost all article), but are done so in an appropriate manner that maintains neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FICTION is not applicable. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:Embedded lists is not applicable. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Notes and reference section are up to MOS standards. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Appropriate inline citations given to sources reliable for the topics statements cited. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
No original research or synthesis found. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
turnitin and reference check reveal no plagiarism. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Highlights all main features talked about in the reliable sources that cover the topic, notably it's close approach, various technical details, and naming. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is sufficiently focused. The article focuses entirely on the object, its discovery, and its satellite. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No controversies discussed, encyclopedic tone upheld throughout, has no clear editorial bias and is otherwise a neutral article about an astronomical object. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Outside of notable cases of vandalism up to about a month ago, there is no history of edit waring I can see. It has been mostly untouched for about a month. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images tagged Template:PD-USGov-NASA - not copyrighted; there are restrictions on inappropriate use per applicable US law. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images highly relevant (only three, all from NASA and all relating to the object), images include suitable captions. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
As I am new to this, I would normally ask for a second opinion, but virtually every item on the list is unobjectionable, and per WP:GANOT, I should pass it. Thank you for the quick fixes.

Suggestions for improvement

I would ask you add actual alt text to the images that summarizes the caption for those who cannot download the images. Currently, the alt text on the first picture used is the name of the image, which is a very bad alt text. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Although 2020 BX₁₂ has a sufficiently long observation arc for its orbit to be accurately determined, the asteroid has not yet been issued a permanent minor planet number by the Minor Planet Center due to it being only recently discovered." Should be broken in half. I don't think this counts as synthesis, because , while I don't think it's technically original research, it is not proper to cite a sentence half-way through. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future approaches section, includes several past approaches, please fix this up for accuracy. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable references - please remove

projectpluto.com: 6 is a dead link also. The statement this is citing should instead use a reference from the Minor Planet Center or news.

References I am unsure about

I previously flagged spacedys.com, before verifying it was ran by a University in Paris. and is a legitimate resource. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I previously flagged a conference talk by Patrick Taylor, but it is sufficiently reliable for the statement made, and is accompanied by an additional citation to a reliable source. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I previously flagged johnstonarchive.net, but after reviewing the site and WP:RSSELF, I can see that the site's owner qualifies as an established expert with previously published material in reliable sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This concludes my initial review. No other problems found. Please respond to the suggestions above for completion of the review. The GAN will be placed on hold for up to seven days in the meantime. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: excellent job. I appreciate you very quick edits to comply with my suggestions. In the future, however, please let the reviewer know here on the discussion page if you have completed any of suggestions, I almost didn't notice as watching this page is not the same as watching the article and I forgot to watch the article. I therefore did not notice your edits until a few minutes ago. Thanks for the quick response and a great nomination that was easy to review! Footlessmouse (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]