Talk:Type Ib and Ic supernovae

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Good articleType Ib and Ic supernovae 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.
Good topic starType Ib and Ic supernovae is part of the Classes of supernovae series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 8, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 3, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Type Ib and Ic supernovae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and I should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

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.:  
  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:  

Everything looks good with this article, so I'm passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As per Talk:Type II supernova#SNII = core-collapse? I contest the GA status. Both this article and Type II supernova gravely confuses supernovae as defined per observation criteria (type Ia, Ib, Ic, and II) with physical mechanisms, such as core collapse supernova versus "trans-chandrasekhar white dwarf supeernova" (not a term!). This article, as well as the type II supernova article describes type Ib and Ic as well as II as being defined by the core collapse. This is erroneous and misleading in extreme. Type Ia, Ib, Ic, II-L and II-R and so on are defined by light curve and spectrum. Core collapse is a theoretical model, not a defining criterion. The article needs heavy rewriting. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The image is erroneous. Oxygen (O) should be above neon (Ne) and below carbon (C), as oxygen is between neon and carbon in the periodic table. Johnm307 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Type Ib and Ic supernovae. 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:

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) 04:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply