Talk:WASP-13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article WASP-13 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
August 26, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon WASP-13 is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:WASP-13/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I will review this article against the good article criteria. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Nicely written article, an interesting read.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    I'm having issues with reference #1; the abstract does not appear to supply cited information.
    Resolved: I've found the PDF article
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    I've no reason to suspect OR, but I can't seem to find cited info in ref #1.
    Resolved: I've Found the PDF article
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    N/A; No images used in article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Article, overall, looks good to me. Will wait until I hear from you on the journal reference. On hold for seven days. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    I've found the PDF and resolved the issue. Everything looks good; glad to list as good article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)