Talk:Pharos (crater)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last updated: 16:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC) by Cocobb8

Estimated finish date: June 9, 2024

Status:  Passed

100% reviewed

   

See what the criteria are and what they are not

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

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

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

5) Stable:

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

Overall:

Comments from first read-through:

@ArkHyena: I am starting this review! Let me know if you have any questions :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@ArkHyena:: The article reads really well! Though it is quite short with regards to other Good Articles, it does not lack in its structure and grammar. Here are some comments from my read-through of the article:

• due to how unusually close it is to Proteus: should it not be how unusually close it is to Pharos instead?

It should be the former, though wording is ambiguous. I've attempted to clarify the sentence as may have formed Hippocamp, a small moon orbiting unusually close to Proteus, though this still is a bit ambiguous admittedly. An alternative suggestion would be welcome! ArkHyena (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• the Ras el-Tin promontory: does an article exist for it such that it could be wikilinked?

No article unfortunately, though it is mentioned in Lighthouse of Alexandria#Origin; I have linked it to that section ArkHyena (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• was likely highly disruptive.: it'd be nice to have a citation or two right after that sentence to prove this potentially controversial point.

Statement attributed to source 10: The Pharos crater on Proteus is unusually large relative to the moon’s size, suggesting that Proteus may have also come close to disruption. ArkHyena (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Are there any estimates, or time ranges, in how long ago the Pharos impact could have happened?

Unfortunately, no source I could find gives any precise estimates besides source 9, which states Hippocamp is probably at least a few billion years old. whilst suggesting Hippocamp is a fragment from the Pharos impact. ArkHyena (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• ~2%: using a word instead of the ~, like roughly will help make this sentence more encyclopedic.

Done ArkHyena (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hippocamp's eccentricity and inclination are both small, so if Hippocamp originated from the Pharos impact a mechanism is required to circularize Hippocamp's orbit.: This sentence may need some re-structuring, especially near the end of the sentence.

I'll wait until you address the above, and will then go ahead with my other checks :). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you need more time, I can also place the review on hold . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I completed a random spot-check verification of the sources and found no issues in the use of the references. I ran a multitude of user scripts to check for copyvios, reference formatting and found no issues there either. Proper NPOV, nice useage of media (maybe an extra image could help?) all appropriately tagged. No stability issues. This article is quite short, but this is not a GA requirement, and I feel safe passing this!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.