Talk:Orion Nebula/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Doing...This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The first issue I see is the introduction is too short (MOS:INTRO#Length). Although it might not be a big enough issue to disqualify it for GA status. Reference link #10 is dead, there is an archive version available, but it simply links to an abstract. I assume this article was in the print version of Sky and Telescope? If so, a link is not absolutely required, although an ISBN or some other identifier should prove useful. These are just superficial issues I see so far, I haven't given the article a full read yet. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Intro length is technically good enough, although it fails to encompass a thorough summary of the entire article.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Citations are a little thin, but sufficient.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Overall a pretty good article, I think this one has maintained a high standard. I couldn't find any typos and that is always a good sign. This article will retain GA status. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.—RJH (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overall a pretty good article, I think this one has maintained a high standard. I couldn't find any typos and that is always a good sign. This article will retain GA status. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
