Talk:Tycho Brahe/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

The article assessor as a new editor was unable to provide a sufficiently critical assessment of this article. As such, I will be doing a re-assessment for this article. At the end of this review I will either Keep or De-list this article from GA status. Normally I would place a complete review of the article into the below review box, however, in this instance I will go criterion by criterion from the most pressing issue to the least pressing issue.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Criterion awaiting review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Criterion awaiting review.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Criterion currently impossible to review due 2c.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Criterion currently impossible to review due 2c.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are many passages within the article that lack the necessary in-line citations, these passages are noted below; The last sentence of the first paragraph of Early years needs a citation. The last sentence of the paragraph of Marriage to Kirsten Jorgensdatter needs a citation. The entire paragraph of The 1572 supernova needs to be cited, to as many sources as are applicable. The last sentences of the first paragraph of Lord of Hven need citations. "Among his predictions was bloodshed in Moscow and the imminent fall of Ivan the Terrible by 1583." Has a note, but, needs a citation. "An ally of the king and friendly with Queen Sophie (both his mother Beate Bille and adoptive mother Inger Oxe had been her court maids), he secured a promise from the King that ownership of Hven and Uraniborg would pass to his heirs." Needs a citation. The first paragraph of Observational astronomy requires citations. "Rawlins (1993:§B2) asserts of Tycho's Star Catalog D, "In it, Tycho achieved, on a mass scale, a precision far beyond that of earlier catalogers." Quotes require in-line citations. (the parenthesis already is a linked inline citation) "Cat D represents an unprecedented confluence of skills: instrumental, observational, & computational—all of which combined to enable Tycho to place most of his hundreds of recorded stars to an accuracy of ordermag 1'!"" Requires a citation. "Incorrect transcription in the final published star catalogue, by scribes in Brahe's employ, was the source of even larger errors, sometimes by many degrees." Has a note, but, requires a citation. "His system also offered a major innovation: while both the purely geocentric model and the heliocentric model as set forth by Copernicus relied on the idea of transparent rotating crystalline spheres to carry the planets in their orbits, Tycho eliminated the spheres entirely." Requires a citation. "Such intersecting Martian and solar orbits meant that there could be no solid rotating celestial spheres, because they could not possibly interpenetrate. Arguably this conclusion was independently supported by the conclusion that the comet of 1577 was superlunary, because it showed less daily parallax than the Moon and thus must pass through any celestial spheres in its transit." Requires citations. "The lunar crater Tycho is named in his honour, as is the crater Tycho Brahe on Mars and the minor planet 1677 Tycho Brahe in the asteroid belt." Appears to require a citation. "and the Tycho Brahe Planetarium in Copenhagen is also named after him." Appears to be an obvious observation, would be good to have a citation for it though.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is a false flag for a copyright violation when using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the material that is being caught by the detector has been present in this article for longer than it has existed elsewhere on the internet. That said, I will also be doing my own checks for copyright violations and will note here if I come across anything.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Criterion awaiting review.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Criterion awaiting review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Criterion awaiting review.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition and there do not appear to be outstanding disputes on the article talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The other quite pressing issue is with the many images in this article; Image 7 needs a PD-1923 licence, however, it also requires Author, Date, Description and a Source. Image 16 also a glaring problem; as the author is not stated and no information is given about the image that would suggest that the article is in the public domain. This includes; date, source, author, description. Many of the images are problematic.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All of the images have appropriate captions and are relevant to the topic. That said, many of these images may not remain following this review.
	7. Overall assessment.

For the image licenses could you explain a little what the problems are and how to fix them? For example what is the problem with image 15 which was uploaded as authors own work - how can anyone be expected to identify that the uploader actually made the image, and does AGF not apply to uploads of this kind? Also as far as I know wikipedians who upload in their username get credited to their username and they do so through the link to the image, not in the caption. It is also quite suprising to me that photos of 16th century documents need additional licensing other than PD.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use file name rather than image number so we all clearly know which images are being discussed? I think the numbering above excluded the signature image

File:Tycho_Brahe.JPG: tag added
File:Tycho_Cas_SN1572.jpg: tag added, the person who did the retouching is identified in the file history section
File:Uraniborgskiss_90.jpg: tag added
File:Tycho-Brahe-Mural-Quadrant.jpg: tag added
File:Brahe_notebook.jpg: there is a source already provided which gives further information; however, it isn't clear to me that PD-1923 would be correct
File:Astronomiae_Instauratae_Progymnasmata.jpg: tag added
File:Tycho_Brahe_Grave_DSCN2900.jpg: author and date are already clearly provided
File:Fotothek_df_tg_0005915_Astronomie_^_Messinstrument.jpg: tag added
File:Fotothek_df_tg_0005918_Astronomie_^_Messinstrument.jpg: tag added
File:Naboth_Capella.JPG: tag added
File:Libr0309.jpg: PD-1923 added - you can verify this by looking at the image itself, as it's the frontispiece for a published book. Under US law a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not warrant a new copyright, so we need only consider the status of the original work and not the scan
File:Brahe_kepler.jpg: this image is fine and needs no modification. The statue is located in the Czech Republic, which has freedom of panorama for sculptural works; thus, only the copyright of the photographer need be considered, not that of the original creator. While it may well be useful to provide further information on the original work, it isn't mandatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, sorry I missed your message, just saw it. Thanks Nikki Maria for putting the tags on the images. I actually missed the author being mentioned on the flickr photo, my mistake. I do have a question, can we actually AGF for images that are presented as "own work" but which aren't verifiable as being such in any way? You said it yourself, the "copyright of the photographer needs to be considered", well, it's possible that somebody is claiming the work as being their own without it actually being their own. If AGF is appropriate, fine by me, ~~I think all the other images have been resolved~~ wait, the notebook image as well is left. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking: if you have reason to think that an image presented as "own work" isn't, you should raise that for discussion - it does happen. However, if there's no reason to think otherwise, then yes, we assume the uploader was telling the truth. Consider: if you went on vacation, photographed a cool sculpture and uploaded the image, how might you prove that you took that picture? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, have a picture of yourself taking the picture. I kid of course. Fair enough, question raised and answered. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude, it's been four weeks since this has been updated. What is the status of the reassessment? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset parts of my assessment for citations hasn't been met - there are still a number of sentences that lack citations though many of the above have been dealt with in some form or another. There are two images that still need addressing as well - File:Libr0309.jpg and File:Brahe notebook.jpg. Maunus, when would you be able to address the remaining items for 3a and 6a so that I can go through the article a second time around and confirm the other criteria? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am almost back from wiki break, but I will need another week untill after the 17th before I begin work on this again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and I have no problem with this. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, Mr rnddude, it's been another month without any work on the article. Any news? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the time I thought I would. You can close the review if you think it will make the world a better place.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close the GA/R as having failed. Excellent effort was put into this article, however, the hasty initial GA review failed to identify any of the problems the article had, let alone give time for these to be addressed. As it's been a couple months I can only suggest that you take the time to deal with the citations when you get the chance and check the remaining images as well. Give the article a general copy-edit and then resubmit for GA. Hopefully you'll get a proper GA review the next time. Sorry about this, but, it could stretch out indefinitely if we let it. Good luck, this article is one that you've put a lot of effort into. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]