Talk:Hollow Moon/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
General comments
[edit]- The references are in more than one format, with names variously as "Forename Surname", as "Surname, AB", or as "A. Surname". Personally I'd recommend a standardized "Surname, Forename" but any one format will do.
- Done - only one ref was last/first, so I went with author Bromley86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose the named books in the "In literature" section are approximately self-citing, but it would be better at least to provide definite page ranges (in a blue-numbered reference), and best to cite a reliable source which comments on the fact that each book mentions a hollow moon.
- Done - rm section, as it's OR (can't find a RS that discusses their mentions of a hollow moon) Bromley86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Specific comments
[edit]- There's one "dubious - discuss" tag which needs to be sorted out.
- Done - followed advice of editor that added tag and called it a fringe theory. I do not have any reference for this, as sources tend to refer to it as a conspiracy theory (the article reflects this), so I've added a note to avoid problems down the line. Bromley86 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nosov's novel title should begin with a capital letter.
- Not necessary - section removed, so now unnecessary. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The SI units for polar moment of inertia (m4) should be supplied after each usage (each value).
- Not done - none of the sources, which are heavyweight academic ones, mention the units, so I would be very reluctant to do so. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please wikilink "density" and replace the units in the "Density" section with kg/m3.
- Partial done - I didn't wl the first mention of density, as that was just conversational, whereas wling the mention in the Density section is useful. I didn't convert the units from those given in the source, as that could cause confusion, but did sup. Will convert if required. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The "In literature" section is currently formatted as a list. This would be better as continuous prose. It should also be expanded and cited to discuss each usage rather than merely asserting it.
- Not necessary - section previously removed as not presented in RS. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please wikilink "Phobos".
- The lead needs to be extended slightly to reflect the article's contents. I'd suggest adding the dates that both Hollow Moon and Hollow Earth first appeared.
- Done Halley and Wells' dates now in Lead. Bromley86 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The "Density" section does not exactly explain how the Moon can have a density of only 3.3kg/m3. Perhaps what is needed is a short cited statement that this is the density of such-and-such types of rock.
- Done - McGeddon addressed this after the review.[1] Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The heading "Arguments advanced in support" does not exactly match that section's contents; perhaps something like "Arguments for and against" or "Claims and rebuttals" would fit better.
- Done - Claims and rebuttals. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- "of the what was then" - please remove the stray "the".
- Done - IP editor fixed post-review. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please remove the empty External links section.
- Done - FockeWulf FW 190 removed post-review. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The images are suitable for the article and are PD.
The prose is suitable for GA.
The article is correctly structured.
Australian hollow moon theory
[edit]- Australian hollow moon theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.128.28 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Closing
[edit]Nom has not replied to any communication, so I'm closing this now. If anyone wishes to take up the reins, they are welcome to ping me and I expect we can quickly bring this article to GA status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, took a big break from WP. Thanks for reviewing. Back now and addressing the points; will ping you when it's ready. Bromley86 (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Chiswick Chap. The article's all good to go, when you have a chance. Bromley86 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Bromley86 OK, I suggest you renominate it (the old GA1 is now closed) and I can then swiftly complete the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap. Cheers, done. Bromley86 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)