Wikipedia:Peer review/Radio Galaxy Zoo/archive1

Radio Galaxy Zoo

I've listed this new article for peer review as it has been given a 'C' class and could do with improvement.

Thanks, Richard Nowell (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Review by Chetsford

Areas for improvement:

• In general, the lead should not contain citations as per MOS:LEADCITE. In the case of this article, the material in the lead is not repeated in the body, however, the material should be repeated and reintroduced. Per the MOS, "lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph". In other words, the lead should function as a standalone encyclopedia article like one might find in a traditional, bound encyclopedia. All of the material in it should then be re-established in the body of the article so that, it too, is a standalone article. Citations, therefore, should appear in the body only.
• All of the images currently lack WP:ALTTEXT. This is not a major issue, and is optional even at GA level, however, would preclude the article from promotion to FA class.
• I'm unclear what the first image is as the caption refers to it as "Radio Galaxy Zoo" but the article says Radio Galaxy Zoo is a website. Is this an image of the website? Is it the logo?
• Should there be a "the" prior to "NASA" here: As a result of NASA 'gap fillers' initiative, it is hoped that?
• Per MOS:EMPHASIS the titles of all published studies should be in italics. In the article they're either bolded or placed in quotation marks.
• Per MOS:COMMA, Wikipedia only uses logical quotation, even for articles written in American English.
• Earwig shows a high likelihood of plagiarism / close paraphrasing: [1]. This is not due to plagiarism, per se, but because of the extensive quotations. While the material is properly sourced and attributed, in general our articles summarize content and don't quote to the very high degree done so here, as per WP:CLOP.
• "NASA" should probably be wikilinked.
• There are issues with the image captions. For instance, the second image capitalizes the word "snapshot" for reasons unclear. Other captions are minimally descriptive and don't clearly explain what is being illustrated.
• The website infobox could be useful: Template:Infobox website.

Good:

• There are no disambiguation issues.
• Everything in the article is thoroughly sourced.
• The web-based references are all archived, which is great.
• The references are all WP:RS.
• The images all appear to be correctly licensed.

Overall, I would agree with the C classification. Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)