Talk:Schiehallion experiment/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
This article is only a few days old but, given the subject material, I doubt if it'll be the target of vandalism or edit warring.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Firstly, well done on this article. It is very close to GA status and the improvements I have to suggest are nitpicky and pedantic:

The lead is too short and does not fully cover the contents of the article. Consider summarizing the selection of the mountain, and the experimantal method in one paragraph each.
There are a few single-sentence paragraphs which make the flow of the article a bit choppy. These should be either expanded or absorbed into other paragraphs.
There is a big, ugly white space next to Hutton's table. The text of that section should wrap around it as it does with images.
Direct quotations need their inline citation directly after the quote, not at the end of the sentence.

I have put this article on hold for now. When the concerns I have raised are resolved, I will have no hesitation in passing it. Again, well done on writing a very fine article. Reyk _YO! 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go at tackling your concerns, particularly regarding a rewrite of the lead. Although this does not contain as much as a paragraph each on the selection of the mountain and the manner of the experiment, they are both provided with a few sentences that should clarify how the whole thing worked. The single-sentence paragraphs have been incorporated into those next to them, with the exception of the mathematical analysis section, for which I feel to do so would make comprehension difficult. The quote issues has been addressed and the whitespace adjacent to the density table now removed. This last seems to have been a browser-related problem, for it wrapped correctly in Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Yea, Internet Explorer sucketh mightily. — BillC ^talk 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearken unto the words of Bill, for he speaketh wisely. IE is rubbish, but using it is not a crime punishable by wonky formatting and misaligned text. I'm more than happy with the changes you've made since I reviewed it, and I'm passing it as a good article. Well done. Reyk _YO! 21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]