Talk:Area 51/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to pass this article, but unfortunately it is something of a mess at present. I will allow plenty of time for changes. Let me know if you feel it should be closed.

Lead

• Access date required for fn 1  Done
• Instances of fn 4 require a page number - everywhere

Geography

• References required at end of all three paragraphs.  Done

History

• fn 9 and 20 requires a title and publisher  Done
• fn 17 and 22 require a page number  Done
• Conversion for runway length  Done
• Suggest dropping the coordinates  Done

U-2 Program

• We don't normally capitalise code words on Wikipedia, but you don't need to change this unless you are aiming for A-class or FAC as MOS conformance is not required at GA  Not done I am not currently aiming for either of them.
• fn 24 requires page numbers - everywhere  Done

OXCART Program

• Reference required for third paragraph  Done

Foreign technology evaluation

• Reference required for second paragraph
• Citation required tag  Done
• Citations required on last two paragraphs  Done
• fn 33 requires a page number  Done removed

Have Blue/F-117 program

• Paragraphs six and seven require references

U.S. government's positions on Area 51

• Last sentences of first two paragraphs require references  Done

U.S. government's positions on Area 51

• fn 6 requires a page

Environmental lawsuit

• First paragraph requires references  Done
• Last sentence of second paragraph requires references  Done

1974 Skylab photography

• Last sentences of first two paragraphs require references  Done

UFO and other conspiracy theories

• Last sentences of first two paragraphs require references

• First I've heard of NERVA at Area 51 (it was at Area 1825) Double check.  Done

Your right. However its referenced by a book which I don't have access to. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have the book, but not with me. I would help out, but it would have to wait until the New Year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I wasn't going to be editing much over Christmas anyways. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

However looking at the book online (no page numbers) confirms Area 25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See also

• Suggest cutting this back

 Done Thx811 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Placing on hold.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I have added page numbers for fn 24, but when I checked open library I found that all the others are unavailable! What do I do? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Fn 4 requires page numbers. I can help with this one.

• Fn 6 requires page numbers. Add from the online version.  Done Someone else appears to have done it.
• Fn 9, 22 and 25 require title and publisher  Done
• Fn 19 and 28 - do we have page numbers? Otherwise just remove the offending sentences.  Done
• Fn 33 - what is this?  Done

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I have fixed all the issues apart from the F-117 section. I can't seem to find sources for it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The layout style guideline says: "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." It is not consistent in this article. Invoking IAR on this.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: