Talk:Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The "Physical charateristics" section seems small. Please expand it.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Gug01:: Thanks very much for the review. I understand the call for expanding the Physical characteristics section, but I am afraid it is not possible. There is practically no other evidence of the passing body than a not very strong light track on two photographs, and so nothing more than it is written in the article is known. I really tried hard going through all the sources before your review and after it again, but there is really nothing more, unfortunately. So I added at least a few words explaining which values was the mass estimated from. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gug01: I really think that the article fulfills the 3a criterium, because it gives all important information known about the topic. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. That means that the article is now ready, so I'll pass the review.

@Gug01: Thanks very much :-)--Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)