Talk:WASP-15/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I'll give it a proper read through now and add any queries etc below. Miyagawa (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• No dab links present.
• No link rot detected.

• References: The three references need to have the same date formatting. - actually I ended up doing it myself.

• Also, although it's not by any means a GA requirement, I'd advise archiving those references where possible as you're relying on a small number of references that wouldn't be easily replaceable.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I've done a series of copyedits, and fixed that date referencing problem. Happy to grade this one up as a GA immediately as I think all bases are covered. Only thing to watch is the prose where you constantly compare the star to the Sun as each sentence ended up with "as the Sun" at the end. But I've added some variety, so its fine now. Nice job. Miyagawa (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)