Talk:Betelgeuse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   the classical astronomer Ptolemy described its color as ὑπόκιρρος, the Greek needs translation. Y

   The 1950s and '60s saw several important developments, the two Stratoscope projects and the 1958 publication of Structure and Evolution of the Stars, both the work of Martin Schwarzschild. Confusing. What is the both referred to here? One book and two projects are mentioned, that makes three. Y

   I am uncomfortable with the use of words such as luminary and this behemoth's . I appreciate the need to avoid repetitious phrasing, but better to use plain English, e.g. "the star" Y

   Apart from above well written, verging on the technical, but generally with sufficient explanation. There may be some comments on the prose at WP:FAC if you take it there.

   I made a couple of minor copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources check out. Journals that are subscription only should use the "|format=Subscription required" parameter. (not a GA requirement)

   Assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and in keeping with the subject.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Appropriate captions and licensing.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few issues to address. This is a comprehensive and interesting article. On Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I am happy to pass this as worthy of Good article status now. It is possible, if you do take this to WP:FAC, that some may require further simplification of the language, by which I do not mean dumbing down. Might be worth getting a WP:Peer review first. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of GA Review

General observations

Thanks for your quick response to the nomination and your encouraging remarks. Casliber and I have made the changes you proposed pursuant to additional comments below. Hope this works.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

1. Ptolemy's use of the term ὑπόκιρρος. I searched online dictionaries plus researched the Allen reference for confirmation of actual spelling. The Greek is copied verbatim from Allen, but no online translator recognized the word. To address your concern, I unified the two sentences, that way explaining the Greek term. If this does not work, let me know. It may be that the only solution will be to delete ὑπόκιρρος altogether, though I'd rather keep it as it is an exact transcription from Allen.
2. Upgraded Allen reference. It turns out that the Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning from Richard Hinckley Allen is now available online. So I upgraded the ref. If you want to see the word ὑπόκιρρος being used, you can quickly access it with 2 clicks.
3. Martin Schwarzschild. The Schwarzschild sentence has been reworked pursuant to your suggestions.
4. Luminary & behemoth. A global search was conducted on the article and every instance has been replaced. In one case, I used the term "supergiant" instead of "behemoth". Hope that works.
5. Improved prose. It's our intention to take this to FA. I will review WP:FAC as you suggest. If you have any other thoughts on how the article can be improved, that would be great. Thanks.--Sadalsuud (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)