Talk:Apep (star system)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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.	No issues
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead adequately summarizes article, lead sentence defines subject, appropriate sections, no weasel words, no lists.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues
	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).	Sources are reliable and complies with WP:SCICITE. Note that the link for Callingham et al. is to a draft version of the paper. While I think that is sufficiently authoritative (especially since it was so close to publication), it probably should be changed to the published version (which is in the external links section linked to a paywalled site). I assume that was for integrity as you were unable to access the published version? Also, I think I've added IFL Science to an article in the past and had it removed as an unreliable source, although I don't think it is.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All content is verifiably sourced
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No close paraphrasing, all content is appropriately sourced and doesn't violate copyright or plagiarize
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Like a lot of scientific articles (eg. extraterrestrial bodies, elements/chemicals), there is a lot of fine measurements given that may seem excessively detailed, but they are appropriate in this subject.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Well, this is a subject that I don't know how it could not be neutral. No fringe theories or controversies...it's based on scholarly writing.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No notable disputes and article has been stable since it was expanded/preped and nominated for GA
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.	No NFC. I made a simple fix so image complies with terms.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions are ok
	7. Overall assessment.	I think this GIF (from the Plait article) would be a great addition to this article (esp. the characteristics section) and would meet the WP:NFCC/fair use criteria if not available under an open license.

Hey, AHeneen! Thanks for putting in the time and effort to review this article for GA status! I greatly appreciate it! I want to respond to the three points that you've made in this review. You're correct in your assumption that I do not have access to the paywalled Nature Astronomy article. I have no idea whether or not there have been any significant changes made between the draft and the final published version, but I personally doubt that there were any. IFL Science! is not currently mentioned on either Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources or Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, so I think it's fine to use it as a source with common sense caution, in which I believe to have exercised. On your suggestion to add the animation you linked, there would simply be not enough space for that in the article, I'm afraid. In this screenshot you can see how the Starbox/infobox on the right completely overlaps the "Characteristics" section, meaning that if an image were placed on the right, it would be pushed down to the "Observation" section, and potentially overlap the "See also" section. Placing it on the left will cause a mountain of formatting issues, too. It would be great if the article was large enough to allow an illustration to be placed there, but I cannot imagine how any further expansion of this article can occur with the limited amount of citations available to us about Apep currently. Thanks again for the review! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I would state here that while the Nature Astronomy article is paywalled, the final version of the paper is open access on arXiv here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.06985.pdf. This also means you can fix a quote in the Wikipedia article that references 'dragon's coil' rather than correctly stating 'serpent's coil'. --Ajihood (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)