Talk:Nicholas U. Mayall/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Modest Genius ^talk 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: This is a well-written article which is close to meeting the GA criteria. I have some issues which need addressing, and all but one should be quick and easy to fix.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is generally good, but much of the early material is unclear to anyone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the American education system. I've fixed some items with links, and dropped a bunch of {{what}} tags at places that need clarification. e.g. 'mid terms' should mention that these are exams.
I fixed all the instances of WP:WTA I found. ~~References should go before Bibliography, per WP:LAYOUT.~~ wait, that's a list of works. I'll rename the section accordingly.
I think I've got these all handled now. WilliamKF (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Referencing in general is very good. There are one or two {{cn}}s that need addressing. Sources seem reliable, and I can't see any obvious OR.
Fixed the citation needed items. WilliamKF (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Coverage is mostly fine for GA. I suggest adding his discovery of globular clusters around M31, which is widely cited [1]. It would be nice to expand the KPNO section, and the previous section on research on Lick to a lesser extent, but they're fine for GA.
Add Mayall II discovery. I have not found much material on the KPNO nor research on Lick other than what is already present. If you can refer me to any other sources, I'd love to use them to expand these sections, but there doesn't seem to be much out there on these. WilliamKF (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images mostly seem fine, with appropriate sources and a fair-use rationale for the single image that requires it. File:HST G1 (Mayall II).jpg needs to include the credit line given on the Hubble site ('Michael Rich, Kenneth Mighell, and James D. Neill (Columbia University), and Wendy Freedman (Carnegie Observatories) and NASA'). It would be nice to have more images, but fine for GA.
Credit applied to HST image. What other images do you imagine adding? If you give me some ideas, I can search for them. WilliamKF (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few images, feel free to remove or rearrange as you see fit. Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Other comments:

Are Sigma Xi and Phi Beta Kappa really 'awards'? Could these not be incorporated into the prose at the relevant point when he joined them?

In addition to the above, I have one major concern: the article, and in particular the first version, is extremely similar to the Osterbrock article. So similar in fact that my first impression was that it had simply been copy-pasted and then rephrased to avoid anyone spotting the copyright infringement. I'm amazed that no-one has noticed this before (which makes me wonder whether anyone else actually checked the sources). Is there some explanation for this? Modest Genius ^talk 17:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Osterbrock article was the first source used to create this article and it has always been widely cited to account for that, it was not copied, but used as a reference, and originally as the only reference. Over time additional sources have been located and used to expand the article further. WilliamKF (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm still not happy, because copyright subsists not just in the exact words used but the sequence of presentation etc. However, I'm no expert on this, and everything else meets the GA requirements. I'm going to list this as GA, but in future don't go following sources quite that closely (and don't be surprised if someone else picks up on this in the future). Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placed on hold for a week pending the above requested changes. Modest Genius ^talk 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]