Talk:Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I'm not convinced about the presentation of the subject's name—unless this is a proper noun it should be "Compton-Belkovich thorium anomaly", which is how it's presented in ref 2; though ref 7 uses "Thorium Anomaly". Which is more prevalent in the sources?

   Regardless of casing, I believe the hyphen should be replaced with an en dash (one of "–" these), as the title indicates a land range between two points (in terrestrial terms, think Uganda–Tanzania War or Mason–Dixon Line).

   Inline citations should follow either a word or punctuation mark without a space, then be followed by a space themselves. Ref 1 is done correctly, but you'll need to look at 2, 3, 5, etc.

   You have a "could've" in there - expand all contractions unless they're part of a quotation.

   "The estimated thorium concentration reaches 5.3 µg/g" -> the first time this measurement is used, perhaps explain it in brackets afterwards; as "... reaches 5.3 µg/g (5.3 micrograms per gram)", the use of mu as a symbol isn't layman-friendly. Might also be worth comparing this to the level of thorium's abundance in the earth's crust.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The first paragraph under "Description" would really fit better in the "Location" heading.

   Another point I'm noticing here; there's citations used in the lead that aren't used in the article body—move the actual cites down to the body text, adding in anything that's not mentioned again, and remove the citations from their place in the lead.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Reliability of refs is fine, and there's a good amount used. Refs 1, 2 and 3 seem incomplete though—ref 1 should have a publisher, 2 needs a publisher and accessdate, and 3 needs an author. 3 also uses "pp." for a single page, this should just be "p.". Ref 6 needs an author, and ref 13 needs a publisher and accessdate. Publishing dates aren't always available but if you can find them for website refs that don't have them, it'd also be a plus.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I'm not really seeing much about this being a thorium anomaly so much as a volcanic region; my understanding would be that a region rich in thorium would also have radioactive properties which aren't mentioned here.

   Overall, the length is a bit on the short side but I think with the material that's here it could easily be expanded—things like "identified by a Clementine Visible Images study that was carried out later" could be quickly expanded to "identified by a visible imaging study that was carried out later by the Clementine spacecraft" with a brief aside (maybe a sentence and no more) on the timing and intention of Clementine. Other things you could clarify for added length might be the "Procellarum KREEP Terrane" (I had to follow a few links to figure out what "KREEP" was), or why the Moon's orbit could cause volcanism to be dated to one million years ago and not three or four.

   Also, not vitally important but I'm curious—have there been any relevant studies on the Moon's background radiation? An anomaly like this would likely feature in one; and I know that one of the reasons for Project A119's cancellation was that it would interfere with possible future radiation studies.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Grand.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Fine.

6. 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 seem okay. I'd move the coloured one to the left rather that keeping it on the right, though.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is an interesting article, but it definitely needs some work. I've listed a good bit of improvement that could be made but I'd be happy to help out with some of this if you'd like, as this seems an intriguing topic. GRAPPLE X 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

   The changes here look good, the little extra length helps more than you'd think. I'd say this is a pass for now, but it'd still take some expansion if you wanted to take it further than this. Well done! GRAPPLE X 15:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)