Talk:Andromeda Galaxy/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
~~"The nucleus is double," poor wording. "It also should be noted that the galaxy" redundant phrasing. The article is good in most areas, but there are some parts that need work.~~

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
While parts of the article maintain a high number of references, there are many uncited statements, and the whole table at the bottom is unreferenced. There is one {{citation needed}} tag, and I could add more.

C. No original research:
~~Uncited statements may contain original research.~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are great, very informative and high quality.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
References are a big issue, this article must maintain a solid base of references to keep GA status. Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted and reassessed as B-class. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the main concerns regarding citations, though part of that included removing the table, as I can see no reason for an arbitrary portion of the table on the main page about Andromeda's satellites to have been copied on to the page for Andromeda. I'll try to address the issue of citations there anyway, but I think the main concerns you raised for the article as it stands have been addressed. James McBride (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to give it one more review to spot any further problems, but it looks much better. Give me some time to make another assessment and I will let you know. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is one more statement that needs a ref. Other than that, all other issues have been addressed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. James McBride (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. All issues have been addressed, article will be kept. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.