Talk:History of Mars observation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) This article is of an exceptional standard. Without checking whether the WP text accurately reflects the content of each reference, the referencing looks sound and carefully laid out. The article is neutral, stable and well illustrated. I have made a couple of mnor copyedits. I really don't think I can find anything else that is an issue. A more talented copyeditor such as Malleus or BrianBolton might make prose improvements, but none other than the minor ones I made sprang to my mind as I read. I am fiddling with one reference issue now, and then i think I've nothing to add. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

No issue at GA, but for FAC the following pts might be addressed:

"Ancient Egyptian Science: Calendars, clocks, and astronomy" (current note 2) does not appear to follow the same format as other references and i thought its nature was ambiguous. An anonymous book? An anonymous journal article?
What is the "William (2000:148)" referred to in current note 14?
"Gill's Work on the Determination of the Solar Parallax" (current note 50) has no author name - is this because none is known?
What makes Snyder (currently note 54) a reliable source? And, whether or not it is, the citation needs to be more complete (include in some way its original publication details)

Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and your copy edits. I think I've addressed your citation concerns.—RJH (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]