Talk:Tycho Brahe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This article appears to be good. I hope to complete a review of it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I am looking forward to it. I am ready to respond to any queries.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Well written

Is the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct?

Yes. This article is written clearly. I think the introduction could possible be made more concise, but this may not be possible. The main body of the article is written very concisely, and doesn't fall into excessive detail. The spelling and grammar are all correct.

The grammar is too conversational and informal -- not up to Wikipedia standards.

Does it comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation?

The possible issue of the length of the lead section is present again. This article has an excellent layout, following a layout which is appropriate for a biography. Furthermore it includes images in relevant and appropriate places. In terms of wording it is suitable, and doesn't use weasel words. No use of fiction is present, and no lists are present.

Verifiable with no original research

Does it contain a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

It does.

Are all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

They are.

Does it contain no original research

No original research is present.

Does it contain copyright violations or plagiarism?

No copyright violations nor plagiarism are present.

Is it broad in its coverage

Does it addresses the main aspects of the topic?

It does.

Does it stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail?

It also does this.

Neutrality

Does it represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each?

It does.

Stability

Does it change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute?

I am going to have to review the edit log and talk pages, but a cursory glance suggest it does not. 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE:A closer analysis reveals that no edit war or content dispute is present. 13:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated

Are images tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content?

They are.

Are images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions?

They are.