Talk:243 Ida/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Very detailed. Could make its way into FA very shortly.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Not sure if the "History" section can be expanded. Two sentences look too short to me.
- I did a lot of searching around for more information, and there doesn't seem to be any. Would it be preferable to merge the discovery section into the exploration section? Reyk YO! 04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a few ideas for expansion. Your suggestion to merge the first two sections sounds fine. Alternately, we could expand it to include later observations, for example the spectroscopic survey that resulted in the S-type classification. This book has some more detail on Ida's naming. Also, we could mention that Palisa Regio was named after Ida's discoverer. Wronkiew (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I added more information about the spectroscopic measurements and Ida's naming. The section now contains four sentences. Wronkiew (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did a lot of searching around for more information, and there doesn't seem to be any. Would it be preferable to merge the discovery section into the exploration section? Reyk YO! 04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure if the "History" section can be expanded. Two sentences look too short to me.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- I am concerned with the usage of File:NWA869Meteorite.jpg. First, how does its use help the reader understand the article? Second, although you can see the hand of a person clearly in the original version, I suspect it is a possible copyvio image because the uploader claims that he releases the license under GFDL, it's rather uncommon for an average person to come into a meteorite, identify it, or even allowed to hold it in his palm.
- I'll remove the image for now and see if I can contact the uploader for proof of ownership. He claims to be Herbert Raab, the author of one of the papers we referenced. I like the image because it illustrates the type of meteorite being discussed in that section. Wronkiew (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS received confirmation of ownership from the copyright holder, so I restored the image. Wronkiew (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll remove the image for now and see if I can contact the uploader for proof of ownership. He claims to be Herbert Raab, the author of one of the papers we referenced. I like the image because it illustrates the type of meteorite being discussed in that section. Wronkiew (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am concerned with the usage of File:NWA869Meteorite.jpg. First, how does its use help the reader understand the article? Second, although you can see the hand of a person clearly in the original version, I suspect it is a possible copyvio image because the uploader claims that he releases the license under GFDL, it's rather uncommon for an average person to come into a meteorite, identify it, or even allowed to hold it in his palm.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Passed as GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)