Talk:Pale Blue Dot/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 23:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide a review today and tomorrow on this article.AstroCog (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I like that there is an article for this, and there appears to be some editors who are curating it. It needs more work before GA status, though.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There isn't much to say about the sections for an article about a photograph. The writing is fine, overall, but there are places where it is too technical and at least one place where a confusing sentence, with a "clarification needed" tag, hasn't been fixed. Why was this not fixed before GAN?

May I please know specifically where the details are too technical so that it can be addressed? Suraj T 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The "clarification needed" tag is fixed. Suraj T 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article suffers from Citation Overkill and could benefit from bundling of sources. Prime example is the citation clutter at the end of the first sentence in the Photograph section.

Citation Overkill issue fixed. Suraj T 09:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'm not sure why the article needs the bit about polarization of light. The text that is there barely addresses its application to the photograph itself.

The polarization section describes why Earth appears pale blue in the photograph (due to scattering and polarization of reflected light). Why is it not applicable to the photograph? Suraj T 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality doesn't seem to be a problem here.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   In the last several weeks, there seems to have been a major content dispute.

Though there has been content disputes, the article has remained almost the same and stable. There have been no repeated changes back and forth. Anyway I'll try to get the dispute resolved soon. Suraj T 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this issue is fixed since proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply per Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Suraj T 10:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, The dispute is resolved now. Suraj T 05:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

1. 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):

   Good set of pictures, though I wonder if there are too many pictures?

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a nice article, and with more time and improvements should be renominated. Also, article editors should finish the content dispute. I see there was a RFC on the dispute. Was this resolved?