Jump to content

Talk:Neptune in fiction/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


Should be a fairly breezy review. Looks like a high-quality short article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Spelling correct, can't find anything that needs to be reworded or punctuation in the wrong place.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lead looks good to me: sums up the points efficiently and concisely. No weasel words are used as far as I can see. A tiny point: I'd recommend in "In the 1897 short story "The Star" by H. G. Wells[...]", "'The Star'" be changed to The Star, as book titles are written; that's a nitpick though.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    All source authors look trustworthy to me. All statements have a ref at the end.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    See above.
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig gives a score of 3.8%, which is more than acceptable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    Broad coverage throughout history, but doesn't go into too much detail.
    b. (focused):
    See above.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Everything's suitably licensed as far as I can tell.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions are good, as are the ALTs.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    Well-written article. I couldn't find many faults with the writing, but I notice a large number of redlinks. If all these topics can be expanded into articles, keep them: if not, and the topics aren't notable, they should be removed. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)