Talk:Neutron stars in fiction/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 01:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this! I am relatively new to GA reviewing, so a before-hand apology as I may mess something up. :) SirMemeGod  16:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Opening remarks

Okay! So overall, the article looks really good. There's a bit that needs done, so let's just start with the first paragraph (the "Background" section).

• When a star runs out of fuel available for nuclear fusion in its core, it undergoes gravitational collapse as there is no longer sufficient outward pressure to counteract the inward force of gravity. For stars similar to the Sun in mass, this produces a dense stellar remnant known as a white dwarf, but for more massive stars it instead results in a supernova explosion.
  I see a lot of refs citing those few sentences ([1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]). Since they all verify the same information, I would suggest cutting down a few of them, so for example, only using [1] and [2] to verify that information, or just using [2]. While having a lot of sources is usually good, it can lead to clutter (WP:INLINECLUTTER).
• The same thing goes for all of the other end-of-sentence citations in the paragraph. I'd just suggest using one or two citations to verify information.

Ping me when you're finished! :) SirMemeGod  13:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I could perhaps reduce the number of sources in some instances, but the reason multiple sources are cited for each sentence tends to be that they verify slightly different information. For the sentence The resulting degenerate matter consisting entirely of neutrons in close proximity to each other—neutronium—has a density on the order of trillions times that of ordinary matter, and millions times that of a white dwarf., for instance, there are four sources cited of which one verifies "trillions times that of ordinary matter" and another "millions times that of a white dwarf", whereas neither of the other two sources verifies either comparison. I prefer putting the sources at the end of the sentence in cases like this rather than in the middle of the sentence after the specific point that particular source verifies, and this leads to a cluster of sources at the end of the sentence (this is a point I've elaborated upon before). At any rate, this is not part of the WP:Good article criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I must have missed that. I honestly can't think of anything more that needs done then! That was pretty much the only thing that I had saw by-paragraph. I'll run the table:

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lede could be longer, although that isn't part of the GA criteria so I'll just go past that.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues found after a read-over.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues, Reflist temp is in the right spot.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is cited, they all verif what they are cited to, and as above cite different things.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	While I did find a 38.7% similarity to Warwick University, a vast majority of that is the quote in the "Background" section.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues, seems to address everything.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I know a lot of astronomy articles have issued with being too "scientific", this one is just fine though.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Nothing of note.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Does not seem to be any edit warring, so it's fine here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged properly, after a check. This also isn't part of the GA criteria, but there seems to be no sandwiching of images, which is good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media shows the neutron stars, and the images are in their correct sections (I.e. Neutron star merger image in the "Merger" section
	7. Overall assessment.

Overall: Good job, passed with no issues. SirMemeGod  21:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)