Talk:Al-Battani/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Just a couple of very niggly bits of wording that needs a bit of rephrasing

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "earliest extant zīj made in the" link or explanation for "zij"?  Done AM
  • "The zīj was first printed in Nuremberg in 1537." is this the Latin version or the original Arabic?  Done AM
  • "His equation was widely used until superseded by more accurate methods." when did the superseding take place?  Done AM

• Astronomy:
  • "where he used astronomical instruments greater than one metre (3 ft 3 in) for the sake of greater accuracy." is this something new? Or why is it significant?  Done AM
  • "He measured the Earth’s inclination as being 23° 35˝." without some idea of how precise this was - this is just fluff - is this accurate or wildly off? The reader has no idea...  Done AM
  • "He determined the solar year as being 365 days, 5 hours, 46 minutes and 24 seconds, which is 2 minutes and 22 seconds from the accepted value." the accepted value for now or the accepted value for his time?

@Ealdgyth: The value only changes by 2.3 milliseconds per century, so the accepted value is essentially unchanged since al-Battani's day. AM

• • The fourth paragraph has four sentences in a row that begin "He" - can we vary this a bit to avoid the choppy feeling?  Done AM
• Mathematics:
  • "in reference to the shadow of a gnomon." suggest giving a quick description of what a gnomen is so the reader isn't forced to the linked article.  Done Sentence amended. AM
  • "The authenticity of this work has been questioned." why is it questioned?  Done Text amended. AM
• Kitab:
  • "His star table (made in 880, using around half the stars found in the then 743-year-old Almagest) was made" can we vary the two "made"s here somehow?  Done AM
  • "A version in Latin was made by the English astronomer" do we know if this was a Latin version of Plato Tiburtinus' Latin version or a new Latin version from the Arabic originals?  Done The latter, AM
  • "It was also translated in Spanish during the" do you mean "It was also translated into Spanish during the" or "It was also translated in Spain during the" - and if the second, was that into Latin?  Done Now clarified. AM
  • "which generated further interest in some of the unanswered astronomical questions that ultimately led to the scientific revolution in astronomy" did Battani raise these questions?  Done Sentence amended, removing the 'throw-away comment' and hopefully making more sense. AM
• Medieval period:
  • "and furthermore." This is unclear what is meant.  Done Removed (it was an error). AM
• 16th:
  • "cited him or his observations" ... last "him" is either one of a list of astronomers or to Clavius - suggest clarifying.  Done AM
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows just a couple of spots where some paraphrasiing is a bit close:
  • "A Kitāb taḥqīq aqdār al‐ittiṣālāt [bi‐ḥasab ʿurūḍ al‐kawākib] ("On the accurate determination of the quantities of conjunctions [according to the latitudes of the planets]") is mentioned by Ibn al‐Nadīm, and is probably identical with" is a bit close to "A Kitāb taḥqīq aqdār al‐ittiṣālāt [bi‐ḥasab ʿurūḍ al‐kawākib] (On the accurate determination of the quantities of conjunctions (?) [according to the latitudes of the planets]) is mentioned by Ibn al‐Nadīm and is probably identical with" in this source as is "in Baghdad towards the end of his life, because of financial difficulties" to "in Baghdad towards the end of his life, because of financial difficulties" in the same source  Done AM
  • "Early in Al-Nasawī's career, he had compiled four astronomical tables on the basis of al-Battānī’s parameter values, but that he later found them in error" is a bit close to "career he had compiled four astronomical tables on the basis of al-Battānī’s parameter values, but that he later found them in error" in this source  Done AM
• Spot checks:
  • "Other zījes based on Kitāb az-Zīj aṣ-Ṣābi’ include those written by Kushyar Gilani, Alī ibn Ahmad al-Nasawī, Abū Rashīd Dāneshī, and Ibn al-Kammad." is sourced to this source which supports this information
  • "the original document is preserved at the Vatican Library in Rome." is sourced to [ this source] which supports the information
  • "In the 1690s, the English physicist and astronomer Edmund Halley, using Plato Tiburtius's translation of Al-Battānī's zīj, discovered that the Moon's speed was possibly increasing." is this source p. 225 which does support the information IF the citation is for pp. 225-227 (227 is where the "increasing" bit is discussed)  Done AM

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I believe I've addressed the issues you raised. Please let me know if the article needs further work. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)