Talk:International System of Units/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would expect the review of History of the metric system (Talk:History of the metric system/GA2) to be completed during this coming weekend, and then I'll move onto this review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now done a quick initial read of the article, but I've not at this stage checked any references or checked the copyright status of any of the figures / images. Apart from these two points the article appears to be at or about GA-level, but there are a few "obvious" minor problems such as undefined abbreviations, such as GCPM (I'll probably fix this one myself.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, section by section, but started at History and finishing with the Lede. This will likely take up to a week or so. Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

History

• Untitled subsection -

• This entirely unreferenced, so I'll treat it as a summary of what follows. However, I may need to come back to this, if I find material here that is not in the following subsections.
• I added the definition General Conference on Weights and Measures for CGPM, as it was otherwise undefined.

• Uncoordinated development -

• This subsection looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Metre Convention -

• There seems to be inconsistent use of CGPM and GCPM, I'll change those that I come across to CGPM. Pyrotec (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise, this subsection looks OK.

• Towards SI -

• This subsection looks OK.

SI Brochure and conversion factors

• This section looks OK.

Units and prefixes

• Base units -

• This subsection looks OK. Note: I did some minor cleaning up as I went through this subsection.

• Derived units & Prefixes -

• These two subsections look OK.
• Please someone review the radian unit. As far as I know it cannot be expressed using meter * meter^-1. Maybe the operation was not the product, in which case clarification is needed.

• Non-SI units accepted for use with SI -

• Generally OK, but I regarded the bullet-pointed headings with references to Table numbers somewhat poorly explained so I added "and the reference to Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9" into the existing [Note 6].
• Similarly, most of these bullet-pointed headings have no references, but its clear that verifiability is back to ref 21, so I'm accepting them as they are.

Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities

• I changed the links during the reviewing process for ISO, IEC, NIST (etc), so that for the first occurrence, each was invoked by name and then subsequently by abbreviation.

• • Otherwise, this section is OK.

Realisation of units

• This section is OK.

Post-1960 changes

• This section is OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of SI

I changed "Worldwide" to "Global". (For clarification) This is not a requirement of GAN, I considered to be a a minor improvement. Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• First, untitled, subsection.

• This subsection looks OK.
• Note: While reviewing, I added the "publisher's name" to the NIST citation, I can't see any reason for not including it.

• United Kingdom and the former Empire -

• This subsection looks OK.

• United States -

• This subsection generally looks OK. However:

• The sixth paragraph (starting: "During the first decade of the 21st century, the EU directive 80/181/EEC had required that dual unit labelling ..." would benefit if a citation was provided for the statement that the delay was due to opposition by the Food Marketing Institute, representing U.S. grocers, in penultimate sentence.
• Similarly, the final statement in the same paragraph, about the EU postponed the sunset clause for dual units indefinitely, would also benefit from a citation.

• European Union -

• Stopping for now. To be continued tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• I found inconsistent use of GCPM & CGPM and millimeter and millimeter. This has already been mentioned before, so I made them consistent.
• Otherwise, this subsection looks OK.

• India -

• This subsection looks OK.

"New SI"

• This section looks OK.

Lead

This appears to be compliant with WP:Lead, in so far as it provides both (as required) an introduction to the topic of the article and a summary of the main points in the body of the article. The current lead also appears to reflect the "balance of the body" of the article, however, for an article of this length the article would be improved if the four-paragraph lead was perhaps expanded to provide a little more detail (but still within the four-paragraph format). Nethertheless, I'm going to award GA-status to the article as it stands. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to be able (at long last) to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)