Talk:Astronomical unit/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 13:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"it is since 2012 defined as exactly" - awkward. I suggest "Since 2012, it has been" or "It was defined as exactly... since 2012".
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"used primarily as a convenient yardstick for measuring distances" - I suggest removing "as a convenient yardstick"
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol usage
The sentence structure in this section is awkward. I suggest combining the two sentences that discuss ua being recommend and used, and also combining the two sentences discussing au being recommend and used.
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Development of unit definition
See 1B and 2C for other notes on this section

"means of our understanding of the laws" - to whom does our refer? Who did the checking and cross-checking? Who assembled the ephemeris, and when did they do it? Is all the information in this paragraph taken from source [9]?
changed from "our" to "the" to keep it neutral Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "adopted" should be included in the link to the 1976 resolution.
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the distance of an object from the probe is basically the product..." this seems very informal. I suggest "the distance of an object from the probe is calculated as the product..."
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage and significance
"and "vigorous debate" ensued" this is cited, but the direct quote needs to be attributed inline.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"until in August 2012 the IAU adopted " - suggest "until August 2012 when the IAU adopted "
changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History
"the distance that Van Helden assumes Aristarchus used " - who is Van Helden? He's cited but never introduced in the text.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Developments
"which is increasingly becoming the norm." - this needs to be cited.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2004 study on secular increase is interesting, but it's not clear how it relates to the rest of the article.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"since 2010, the astronomical unit is not yet estimated " - this is awkward wording. I suggest "since 2010, the astronomical unit has not been estimated ".
changed accordingly (I guess, gonna check again) Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, changed accordingly Mdob (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source for this claim is dated 2011. Is it still accurate?
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples
"figures in this table are generally rounded, estimates, often rough estimates, and" - suggest "figures in this table are generally rounded and often rough estimates, and".
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"may considerably differ from other sources" - most of the examples are unsourced. If they're rough estimates, who calculated them?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I couldn't find a MOS for the Measurement project, but it seems odd to have two development sections. After reviewing the material, it looks like "Development of unit definition" is really just more recent elements of "History". I suggest combining the two.
Clarifying that one section is the history of the symbol usage is also acceptable. No issue here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2018 (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:
no concern

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:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
"In the astronomical literature, the symbol AU was (and remains) common." - This is true in my experience, but the claim isn't cited in the section or in the parenthetical part of the opening sentence.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in the Development section has no citations and some of the claims seem like original research. For example, "measuring the points of its extremes defined the exact shape mathematically" is only true in hindsight and ignores the processes used in estimates made by observers in the time of geocentrism and epicycles. I suggest rewriting the paragraph to focus less on the mechanics of an ellipse and more on how astronomers have been estimating the distance and using it as an element in other distance calculations.
I didn't have the time/didn't know how to change it. My apologies. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig shows some high returns due to unavoidable phrases like "The International Bureau of Weights and Measures" and "the speed of light in a vacuum"
I've put the part of "Newtonian orbit about the sun" between quotes. Simply changing the words in the sentence would not have avoided plagiarism. The statement is already sourced (http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf). "speed of light in vaccum", "International System of Units", etc are too short and too much used by everyone to constitute plagiarism. Mdob (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion here - I wasn't indicating a concern about plagiarism, just noting the cause of the high return on the earwig tool. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
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:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Notes complete. Final decision depends on response to issues raised. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdob: you addressed some points and indicated you wanted to respond on this page. Is this still something you're working on? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, Mdob asked me to fail this nomination since he is occupied with schoolwork. He will continue to improve the article and might re-nominate in the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]