Talk:4337 Arecibo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs) 07:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I will research about the topic and review the article in a few days. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Initial review at 07:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC):

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Prose: The article has a confusing layout, because of the "Satellite" section. I suggest merging information about its discovery to "History", and factual information about itself to "Physical characteristics". A longer lead with a paragraph dedicated about the minor planet and its satellite's discovery is warranted. Other than that, the writing looks good and don't overuse passive structures, and there's a great detail on how the occultation is measured, which is really helpful for laypeople like me to understand. Some paragraph is a bit too long and should be split, but feel free to ignore my opinion. I'm not a huge nit-picker at text, so once these issues are solved, it gets an automatic pass on criteria 1a for me.
  • @CactiStaccingCrane: Question: Before I begin merging the satellite prose, are you asking me to eliminate the "Satellite" section entirely in favor of merging all of its contents to other sections? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 16:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think that it is necessary. You can keep the satellite's characteristics in a separate section if you like. I just found that the discovery of Arecibo's satellite should be placed at "History". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Done. I've renamed and moved the entirety of the satellite Discovery subsection to the History section below Naming, so the time progression should make sense. I've also made some changes to the Satellite section to accommodate for this; I've split the satellite Characteristics, made some minor prose changes, and added an infobox for the satellite. You may review these new changes if you like. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
        • It looks great! Passed criterion 1a. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Layout and Manual of Style: External links should be reduced or incorporated to the article as sources. I think the first image at "Discovery" should be removed as it is a duplicate of lead's image. Some nouns and jargons should be linked, such as "high-speed video cameras", "gravitational influence", "orbital stability", and more. Other than that, there's a good use of conversion templates and uncertainty bounds.
  • Done? Comment: Exactly what do you mean by "External links should be reduced or incorporated to the article as sources?" I'm a bit confused on that part. Other than that, I've done your wikilink and image suggestions. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 16:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I think that the external links are a bit excessive. You should try to either gather information and use them as sources, or remove it. Some links should be stayed in the article though, so use your own judgement for that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Before I check this off, I would like you to comment about my changes. I've removed two external links that were either irrelevant or already used as a source in the article. I've decided to keep the rest since I believe these are relevant links, although there is some content overlap with the AstDys-2 and JPL Small-Body Database link templates. Unfortunately there isn't an option to modify the number of links for these. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
        • I think that it's better than before. Though I'm not an expert at the Manual of Style, I passed criterion 1b as it's good enough for, well, a good article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Coverage: Good detail about the satellite's discovery, a pass for criteria 3a and 3b for me.
• Neutrality: I have some concern about this quote: it is the first asteroid moon discovered and confirmed by amateurs and the first to be discovered and confirmed entirely by the occultation method. It should be paraphrased to be more neutral.
  • Done. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 16:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Pass criterion 4. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Stability: Irrelevant, pass criteria 5
• Image: I would like the texts in the images bigger, so that it is easily visible in the article without needing to click on it. Images are good and pass criterion 6b, however for criterion 6a, I have some concerns about the software EULA requiring: "Where the success of a commercial publication is likely to be dependent upon the output from OCCULT, you do not have automatic permission to include Occult outputs in that publication. You will need to contact the author and seek written permission." Even though Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, the text should be able to be licensed over CC BY-SA 3.0, which means it should also be possible for the pictures to be used commercially. I suggest you to email the software's author and send a copy of it to Volunteer Response Team just to be sure.
  • In progress: I've sent an email to Dave Herald a few hours ago and I am awaiting his response. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Update: I've received an approval message from him. I've forwarded the email to VRT and now I'm waiting for their response. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Amazing! Pass for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Text copyright violations: None spotted after using Earwig. Passed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Verifiability: Will be checked in a couple of days. Until then, feel free to polish the text to match the sources. It's time. I use a random number generator and use it to spot-check about half the sources. Please be patient while I'm doing so at my sandbox. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Format and reliability concerns, ref number refers to this article version: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 needs page numbers (use {{rp}} at inline refs); 17 may constitute original research (detail the calculations in the Notes section instead); why is 14 from a mailing list reliable? More to come. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Other sources are reliable, therefore criterion 2b has been met. Spot-checks are in progress. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

      Nrco0e I've done quite a few, and there's nothing that is too outstanding for me to say. Promoted the nomination, great work! It's a fun article to read. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)