Talk:Manuel Foster Observatory/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Praemonitus in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply


Happy to review the article.

Review comments

edit
Lead section / infobox
Understood. AM

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

1 History

edit
  •  N The section is split into four subsections, but only three are given titles. I would give the first section a title as well (e.g. Background).
    I'm not seeing anything in the MOS about requiring a header for this introductory section. I think that just adds clutter. Praemonitus (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
My apologies for not being clearer. You won't a requirement (see MOS:SNO), but not all the text down to the subsection D. O. Mills Expedition relates directly to history of the observatory, which is what readers might expect when they see the title 'History'. The idea of a southern hemisphere observatory appears at When Campbell brought the need for a southern observatory.... Everything before this should be in a different (sub)section, and it would make sense if the text starting from this place was in the D. O. Mills Expedition. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I don't agree with you on this. A paragraph break at that point would be inappropriate. The 'D. O. Expedition' section is about the actual expedition, not the motivation, planning, and preparation. (I ended up changing the section title, which is regrettable because the original was better.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Happy with that. AM
1.1 D. O. Mills Expedition
Clearly. To improve the quality of the prose, I meant to amend to something like 'After a month-long delay due to a riotous strike in the port, he gear was unloaded, and then transported...". Amitchell125 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Changed, reluctantly. I thought it sounded fine when read out loud and it better emphasized the impact of the riot. Praemonitus (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
1.2 Extended funding
Understood. AM
I modified the sentence to clarify. Praemonitus (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Understood. AM
Understood. AM
Understood, AM
1.3 Purchase

More to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

3 References
  • Not GA, but it’s worth noting that when I last counted them, 25 of the sources listed in this section (and three in the section below) were over half a century old. Whilst they seem to be reliable enough, more recent sources might be preferable, if they exist (see WP:OLDSOURCES).
    I'll just note that this is primarily a history article that uses the original sources for tactical details. The newer sources mostly cover it at a higher level. Sorry but I can't really address this in a significant way. Praemonitus (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Understood. AM

On hold

edit

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 8 January to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the work you've started. I've begun to cross out issued that are addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your detailed review. Praemonitus (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
And thanks for your work on the article. I'll be adding a small cross ( N) by any comments not crossed out, and coming back to them later. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Passing

edit

I can happily live with the article as it now stands—it's clearly now a GA. Congratulations and thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply