Login
Login

Talk:Sakurai's Object/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


=Criteria=

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

{{see|WP:WIAGA}}

A good article is—

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

    2. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}. 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. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

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

    : (b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}};Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

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

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

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

    4. : (a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}};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. and

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

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

  5. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.
    6. 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.

  6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:
    7. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

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

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

=Review=

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

    2. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (prose)The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar is consistently correct throughout.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (MoS)Meets criteria relating to the MoS.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    3. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (references)The article contains a list of properly formatted citations.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)Meets criteria, and additionally meets the mentioned scientific citation guidelines.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (c) (original research)No clear or detectable OR.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)Both manual and tool lookups do not return any significant chance of a copyright violation.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    4. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (major aspects)Each apparent major aspect of Sakurai's Object have been addressed while...{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (focused)...staying focused on the key aspects.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    5. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    The article represents all viewpoints without bias.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    6. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Notes !! Result

    The article can be considered stable.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

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

    7. :

    class="wikitable"

    ! Criteria !! Notes !! Result

    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)The sole image is from Commons.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)The sole image has a suitable caption.{{GAHybrid/item|y}}

==Result==

class="wikitable"
ResultNotes
{{GAHybrid/item|y}}Clearly meets the GA criteria without the need for improvements.

==Discussion==

  • {{ping|Samtar}} Are you sure that 3a is satisfied? While I haven't looked through in much detail I'd be surprised if this relatively short article was a good summary of the [http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?submit=display&bibdisplay=refsum&bibyear1=1850&bibyear2=%24currentYear&Ident=%402548929&Name=V*+V4334+Sgr#lab_bib nearly 300 papers] which mention the subject [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_req=YES&ttl_logic=OR&title=%22V4334+Sgr%22&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1 nearly 80 papers] specifically about the subject. Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

:*{{re|Samwalton9}} I think the additional note 3 should clarify your doubt (it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.). Regards—UY Scuti Talk 07:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Samwalton9}} Thanks for your comment and concern - when evaluating GA's I try to balance between the criteria and the community expectations for a GA. I firmly believe that this article meets the criteria, and agree with {{u|UY Scuti}} that the "main aspects" of the topic are covered adequately. I would advise editors that this article's scope is not yet sufficient for it to be classed a FA, which requires significantly more coverage -- samtar talk or stalk 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

=Additional notes=

{{Reflist}}