Talk:Carl Størmer/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Hawkeye7 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


No much work required

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    Some minor points; see below
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    Some citations required; see below
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Nearly there, only some small changes required
Comments
  • Citations required in the third paragraph of Mathematical research and the third paragraph of Astrophysical research
  • Title case for the book title in the lead and the third paragraph of Astrophysical research
  • Link π in the lead
    That should do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
    @Hawkeye7: Thanks! All done, I think. At least, done if I'm interpreting what you meant by the third paragraph of the mathematics section correctly (it is actually still part of the first paragraph). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
    All good then. Passing the article. You could consider adding some of his awards to the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply