Talk:Regular moon/GA1

GA Review

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

}}

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

Nominator: {{User|ArkHyena}} 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pencilsforall (talk · contribs) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I've read your article and I am working on comments. I'll add a table with comments and notes when I finish the review.

I think this is a really interesting article and you've done a great job! I learned so much by reading this article! My main concern so far is whether the article is written for a broad audience. It's clearly written for knowledgeable readers, but it's unclear to me that it follows the WP:ONEDOWN suggestion. You might want to consider reviewing suggestions for making technical articles understandable WP:TECHNICAL. I reviewed the Hemmingway App and calculated the Flesch Kincaid grade level which both suggest that the reading level may be too difficult for a broad audience. I'll have specific suggestions and comments after I finish with spot checking references and so on. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"

style="vertical-align:top;"

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|y|3=The article is well written, although the writing style could be simplified at a later date to allow a broader audience to understand the information. The article is written for an educated audience but the writing style could be modified without substantial changes to the content. I think the most important modifications would be in providing background information for complex topics and defining terms.

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|y|3=No concerns here.

}}

style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}, as shown by a source spot-check:

{{GATable/item|2a|y| Good references.

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|hold| References and citations are great. I did a spot check of nine sources using a random number generator to select what to check. I have one concern: Source 29 This source seems to suggest that the question of how Io's atmosphere is maintained is unresolved, but in the article it is listed as evidence that Io's atmosphere comes from freezing of outgassed materials. See last line of abstract. This isn't my specialty, but this seems to be unresolved as of now.

}}

{{GATable/item|2c|y| No concerns about original research or travels to moons.

}}

{{GATable/item|2d|y| Seems to be all good here.

}}

style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|y| Really nice coverage of the topic.

}}

{{GATable/item|3b|y| Nicely compact and on-topic. Could be expanded to make accessible to broader audience.

}}

{{GATable/item|4|y| No concerns.

}}

{{GATable/item|5|y| All good.

}}

style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|y| All good.

}}

{{GATable/item|6b|y| Nice media and recent revisions are really helpful.

}}

{{GATable/item|7|y| Looks great!

}}

:: 2b: addressed; it turns out source 30 also made mention of this. Elaborated as {{xt|... though it remains uncertain whether volcanic outgassing or sublimation is the dominant supporter of Io's atmosphere.}} -Ark

Sounds good! Pencilsforall (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)