Talk:Leuschner Observatory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. 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.

2. 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	A well written article, one MoS problem (listed below).	Pass
(b) (MoS)	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. YResolved	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	For all this section: An adequately referenced article, with reliable sources and no original research.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	See above.	Pass
(c) (original research)	See above.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Article has all the major aspects and is focused on the subject.	Pass
(b) (focused)	See above.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The article is stable: It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	If it is possible, this is not a GA Requirement, please find a free use image for the infobox.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	MoS issue needs to be finished, and then I will give an 'aye' for this article! Well done! Passed!

Discussion

Please 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)