Talk:Leuschner Observatory
![]() | Leuschner Observatory has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 13, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that two high school students used the automated telescope at Leuschner Observatory to record the earliest images of supernova SN 1994I? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Leuschner Observatory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Criteria
editA good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
edit- Well-written:
- A well written article, one MoS problem (listed below).
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 Meter, use 6 Meter, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6 Meter.Resolved- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Article has all the major aspects and is focused on the subject.
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- The article represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- The article is stable: It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) |
|
Pass |
(b) (MoS) |
|
Fail |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) |
|
Pass |
(b) (focused) | See above. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
|
Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
|
Pass |
Result
editResult | Notes |
---|---|
Pass |
Discussion
editPlease ask questions if there is a need for that. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- One MoS issue, and then a pass! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the units of measurement, I had imperfectly followed the convention for measurements used as adjectives (MOS:HYPHEN). I think it is all now consistent in using hyphens. James McBride (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I did not read that part of the WP:MOS.
PASS — Pass–Well done on bringing Leuschner Observatory to be a Good Article! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional Notes
edit- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Leuschner Observatory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071111220915/http://www.seti-inst.edu/about-us/media-information/pr-041900.php to http://www.seti-inst.edu/about-us/media-information/pr-041900.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leuschner Observatory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609195932/http://seti.berkeley.edu/opticalseti to http://seti.berkeley.edu/opticalseti
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)