Talk:Near-Earth object/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Near-Earth object/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Near-Earth object/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mdob (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}

:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}

• This article has 9 sections (and 10 subsections), all of then extensive.{{GAList/check|aye}}
• covers both the history, threat and classification of NEOs.{{GAList/check|aye}}
• The 6 paragraphs summary before the contents is good:{{GAList/check|aye}}
• the 1st paragraph (definition) is excellent{{GAList/check|aye}}
• the 2nd paragraph (examples) is very good{{GAList/check|aye}}
• the 4 other paragraphs aren't bad, but perhaps could be shortened;{{GAList/check|nay}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}}

:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}}

:(c) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}}

:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.

The risk/threat section covers the problem in a non-political, non-alarmist tone.{{GAList/check|aye}} Mdob (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

22 small, non-intrusive images {{GAList/check|aye}}Mdob (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}

:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}

• good illustrations, except for two in the top-righ-panel:
• File:Eros_rotation_Dec._3-4_2000.gif (makes my eyes hurt){{GAList/check|nay}}
• the graph about Apollo asteroids (too big){{GAList/check|nay}}

Mdob (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

: I'll try to address the points you criticised later today. I must ask however: which graph do you mean in your last point ("graph about Apollo asteroids")? Perhaps the pie chart in the infobox? Rontombontom (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

: OK I'm done now. In the intro, I shortened paragraphs 4-6 (even merging 4 and 5), but I don't see how to shorten paragraph 3. In the infobox, I removed the rotating Eros one and moved the Itokawa photo from the "Exploratory missions" section in its place. I reduced the width of the entire infobox; the pie chart is now the smallest possible without a line wrap in the legend below it. In addition, in the "Projects to minimize the threat" section, I noticed that the details on the early history of the Spaceguard survey have been imprecise, so I re-worded and expanded it a bit, adding two new sources.

: Does this address all your concerns? Rontombontom (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

::Yes Sir. Very good work. And You did it in less than 24 hours. Congratulations! Mdob (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

::You (we) now need to suggest an interesting factoid to ...Did You Know Mdob (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

:::Thanks! I made a DYK nomination, it was my first, I hope I did it right... Rontombontom (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)