Talk:Donatiello I/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The prose standard is generally good, and the article complies with the relevant sections of MoS. One note: the word "located" appears twice in the first sentence of the lead, and again in the third sentence, as well as in the first sentence of "Characteristics" and the first two sentences of "Observation". It would be nice to mix up the diction a little more.

    Done – For most cases, uses of "located" have either been replaced with a synonym or removed entirely. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

   The paragraphs are tending to be too long. In particular, the section "Observation" is currently one uninterrupted paragraph of over 300 words. It needs to be broken up for visual ease of reading and to introduce some structure to the flow of ideas. Since you apparently feel strongly that very long paragraphs are best for this topic, I won't insist on dividing any of the other sections, but a single paragraph more than a page in length is unreasonable.

    Done – It is unclear what you mean by a "page in length", and on my end at 100% zoom and fullscreen on a 1080p monitor, the entire section appears as seven lines without the image, which is the standard I've come to accept as while the Manual of Style defines more than a single sentence as a lower limit, it does not define an upper limit other than a vague "certain length". Nonetheless, I've split the section in two in order to satisfy your concerns, though it does sort of break the narrative of the section up a bit in order to avoid a first paragraph being only two lines in length. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   300 words is a common standard for a page of hand-written text; obviously it's an imprecise measure, but it's an indication that this is more text than a reader would normally expect to encounter in a single paragraph. Considering that the majority of Wikipedia's traffic comes from mobile devices, which have horizontal resolutions significantly below your 1920 pixels, it's worth narrowing your window a bit to make sure the text still reads well in the format most people will see. For example, iPhones prior to generation X have horizontal resolutions of only 750 px; at that resolution, your single-paragraph "Observation" section is forty-two lines long, covering more than two entire screens of print with no break. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   Could you link me to any guideline that states this supposed 300-word recommendation if one exists? Otherwise this is simply a user preference issue, if anything. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

   From the first page of my Google results for "Words per page": Howard Community College: "For a page with 1 inch margins, 12 point Times New Roman font, and minimal spacing elements, a good rule of thumb is 500 words for a single spaced page and 250 words for a double spaced page." Purdue Online Writing Lab: Abstracts: "The abstract should be one paragraph, 150-200 words in length..." Paragraphing: "Include on each page about two handwritten or three typed paragraphs." A standard length for a paragraph is 150~200 words, and a standard for a single-spaced typed page is ~500 words, while for a handwritten page it's more like ~300 words. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article has a reference section and citations to reputable sources.

   One accuracy comment: in the section "Observation", the fourth sentence describes the galaxy's apparent diameter as "roughly 57 arcseconds", but the note clarifies that the value is 57.6±18 arcseconds. If that's the real figure, then "roughly 57" greatly overstates the precision of the number (by more than an order of magnitude), and it should be changed to "roughly 60 arcseconds" in the body.

    Done – the passage has been changed as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

   Having now reviewed the sources, I have some other comments.

   Several relate to MOS:UNCERTAINTY, which says that if we're not going to include the true margins of error from the study, then we should follow significant digits in reporting approximate figures. Thus, early in the section "Observation", the surface brightness reported in the study is 26.5±1.0 mag/arcsec^2, which should be reported in this article as "around 27" (or "around 26") rather than "around 26.5" for appropriate precision. For the same reason, in "Characteristics" the study's ellipticity of .69±.05 should be summarized as "around 0.7" rather than "around 0.69", and the effective radius of 442±157 pc should be reported as "roughly estimated to be 400 parsecs" rather than "roughly estimated to be 442 parsecs".

    Done – the passages have been changed as requested. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   In fact, you've changed 442 parsecs to 440, but the margin of error is more than 100, meaning that the tens place is not significant. The value needs to be changed to 400. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   My mistake. It was a typo. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

   In the infobox, the figures for the object's absolute magnitude and half-light radius should be given their margins of error from the study (−8.3 ± 0.3 and 442 ± 157 pc, respectively). Is there a reason to leave out other infobox parameters that are present in the study, such as surface brightness, type, and the alternate name "Mirach's Goblin"? If not, then they should be added.

    Partly done – I've updated the magnitude and radius figures as requested. However, I've added information on the galaxy's surface brightness, with an appropriate citation, in the prose of the article in "Characteristics" instead. The purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". We need to consider what would a reader with a casual interest in astronomy need to know without skimming the article. Too many articles suffer from infobox bloating – the indiscriminate stuffing of information into the infobox that causes harm to the design of the page, such as the displacement of images and tables, and the disorganisation of sections as a result. I'm unsure as to whether or not most casual readers would even know what surface brightness is, as opposed to the common values of location, distance, brightness, and size. The galaxy's names are already highlighted in the very first sentence of the article, and thus we don't need an entire two lines in the infobox to display just a single name, which is what this infobox's names parameter does. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   I strongly doubt that a "casual reader" would be able to make anything of any of the entries in this infobox ("half-light radius"? "declination"? "Megaparsecs"?) besides "constellation" (except that casual readers will also incorrectly think that "constellation" means "asterism"...), so I don't think that will be a helpful standard to apply. As for the infobox jutting down into other sections of the article, while I think that's a valid concern, of course the depth to which the infobox pierces the article will depend on the viewer's horizontal resolution, and only a tiny minority of readers render the encylopedia as widely as you do, as discussed above (and on the mobile site infoboxes are not rendered in parallel with the body at all, rendering the whole concern moot). At any rate, I think your point about the "names" parameter is fair, but the entry type = dSph absolutely does belong in a summary of this article's contents. "Surface brightness" is no more technical than any of the other characteristics in the infobox, but it may be less important, and if you feel that strongly about conserving space in the infobox, then it can be left out. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   I need to stress – "a reader with a casual interest in astronomy". One with a casual interest in astronomy would know what location, distance, brightness, and size are and the values to determine them. Unfortunately, {{Infobox galaxy}} mostly does not have simple names for certain parameters, i.e. what could simply be "radius" has been extended to "half-light radius", which leads to the concerns you raised. I'm currently making {{Infobox star}}, so it is not in my best interest at the moment to start a campaign to make fundamental changes to {{Infobox galaxy}}. However, as a trade-off for fitting type into the infobox for this article per your suggestion, I've made a bold move to remove the seemingly unnecessary "See also" section of the infobox. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the major aspects of the topic, including the galaxy's name, basic features, and observational history. The body is a bit short, but it appears that not much is known about this object, given its recent discovery. The article doesn't wander into tangentially related topics but maintains a good focus on the subject of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article maintains a suitably neutral tone and attitude toward the content, not e.g. overstating the topic's significance or lionizing its discoverers.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images are relevant and helpful, and both have appropriate licenses. As a non-expert, looking at the infobox image, I have no idea what part of the image is Do I; some sort of guidance in the caption would make the image much more informative.

    Done – both the alt caption and the {{Efn}} note have been updated to explicitly state where in the image Donatiello I is. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

   Few readers will know to hover over what looks like a citation in the caption to learn that, and closer to none in a touchscreen mobile interface. The clarification needs to appear in the actual caption of the image to serve its purpose. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   If readers know how to use citations, they'll know how to use notes, as they're practically the same feature used for different purposes. In an attempt for a hard resolution to this issue, I've made a tighter crop of the lead image in {{Infobox galaxy}} so that the entire galaxy now comfortably fits the width of the image and any ambiguity on the location of the galaxy in the image has been removed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A compact and clear article about an interesting discovery! I've made a few comments, and once they're addressed it should be able to meet the standard for GA. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

   The article now meets the standard for GA and is hereby approved! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)