Talk:Stingray Nebula/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Section-by-section review
Lead
- Take out "Browbowski 94" in parenthetical cite here. Change it to a ref with the <ref></ref> tags.
- Change "The Stingray" to "The nebula"
- Make " and it is located 18k light years away" into a separate sentence.
- You make reference to "Bowbowski, et al." Say who the "et al. is". For example: "Browbowski and other researchers at the University of X ..."
- Wikilink "magnitude" as it has a certain meaning in in Astronomy contexts
- Make the "--" dash into an —
History
- Explain what an 'emission line star' is.
- Put the full name of the acronym organization
- Remove the parenthetical cite. The ref link to the source is fine.
- Move the cite from "Browbowski" to the end of "observed it"
- Explain why it is called the Stingray Nebula and put a cite for him/her using the Hubble to find it. It may be the same source saying he/she found it.
- Confused here. It says it was observed as a PPNe - how does it make Bobrowski the 'finder'?
PNN
- Need a cite for the first sentence's claim
- Same for the second sentence.
- Again, using the ref tags are fine instead of the parenthetical usage here.
- Put info on what a PNN is.
- Put info on why it is significant, as this was seemingly mentioned in the lead.
Notes
- Fix the notes so that the 'a' subpoint is the sole thing in the 'notes' section while the other cites can go under a "References" heading.
Concluding Thoughts
- This article is very short and thus may not meet the GA mandate that an article be broad it its scope of the topic. I suggest putting more information in to expand the article.
- This will be placed "on hold", allowing a week's time to fix the article before I make an assessment for GA. If you have any questions, feel free to post it on my talk page. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Other misc. issues
- Lead doesn't need cite
- Lead should be a summary of the information. Some of the content is not referenced in the lead and visa versa.
- Lord Roem (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Conclusion[edit]
No attempt to resolve concerns --> GA nominations will be failed. Lord Roem (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)