Talk:Ursa Minor/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )

3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

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.^[1]

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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

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

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

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

^[5]

(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.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	This article follows copyright laws and generally is correct in terms of spelling and grammar.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	This article follows all required sections of the Manual of Style.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article is well referenced ~~with the exception of the lead~~.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All citations are of reliable sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The article does not appear to have original research.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	This article covers all major aspects of the subject.	Pass
(b) (focused)	This article remains focused on the core topic throughout the article..	Undetermined

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

Notes	Result
This article covers the topic from a neutral point of view.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
The article is currently stable and not undergoing any edit wars..	Pass

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)	All images are used legally.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images fit the article and when used the captions are suitable.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Overall this article is a very good example of a constellation article.~~See 2a~~

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

@StudiesWorld: I consider the pages of the book reference (Wagman) as Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations. I am unhappy with parenthetical referencing as a whole as it adds to page clutter. I prefer as is but I can combine both book refs into one ref with the two pages listed. Do you feel I need to do that. It's not a real bother. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Casliber: I agree with you that it does add to the clutter. While it is not necessarily required for passage that would definitely be a helpful change. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

ok @StudiesWorld: - I have done it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]