Talk:Schiehallion experiment/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   This article is only a few days old but, given the subject material, I doubt if it'll be the target of vandalism or edit warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Firstly, well done on this article. It is very close to GA status and the improvements I have to suggest are nitpicky and pedantic:

• The lead is too short and does not fully cover the contents of the article. Consider summarizing the selection of the mountain, and the experimantal method in one paragraph each.
• There are a few single-sentence paragraphs which make the flow of the article a bit choppy. These should be either expanded or absorbed into other paragraphs.
• There is a big, ugly white space next to Hutton's table. The text of that section should wrap around it as it does with images.
• Direct quotations need their inline citation directly after the quote, not at the end of the sentence.

I have put this article on hold for now. When the concerns I have raised are resolved, I will have no hesitation in passing it. Again, well done on writing a very fine article. Reyk _YO! 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had a go at tackling your concerns, particularly regarding a rewrite of the lead. Although this does not contain as much as a paragraph each on the selection of the mountain and the manner of the experiment, they are both provided with a few sentences that should clarify how the whole thing worked. The single-sentence paragraphs have been incorporated into those next to them, with the exception of the mathematical analysis section, for which I feel to do so would make comprehension difficult. The quote issues has been addressed and the whitespace adjacent to the density table now removed. This last seems to have been a browser-related problem, for it wrapped correctly in Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Yea, Internet Explorer sucketh mightily. — BillC ^talk 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hearken unto the words of Bill, for he speaketh wisely. IE is rubbish, but using it is not a crime punishable by wonky formatting and misaligned text. I'm more than happy with the changes you've made since I reviewed it, and I'm passing it as a good article. Well done. Reyk _YO! 21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)