Talk:White House Astronomy Night/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Why is reference 26 not formatted like the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkMonk (talk • contribs)

Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking on the review. That's because that reference was added by another user, I'll go format it now, thanks for spotting that! — Cirt (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:I've gone ahead and standardized the reference formatting so as to increase uniformity throughout the article, so this is now  Done. Thanks again for your helpful query, — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is quite a bit of overlinking, including in the Mythbusters-related captions.
• The image and video on the same line under 2015 White House Astronomy Night could be offset, to prevent "sandwiching".
• "a speech where he emphasized" Wherein?
• "Telescopes used at the event to peer at the heavens were all optical telescopes." Could be simplified to "(Only) optical telescopes were used topeer at the heavenes during the events.
• South Lawn of the White House is linked at second mention, not first.
• "the first female American to travel to space" Perhaps add what year this was?
• "NASA astronaut Ride wore" Why don't you present her as such at first mention?
• "New York high school student Moore discovered Supernova 2008ha" The relevant article states she co-discovered it.
• "youngest individual to identify a supernova in this fashion." In what fashion?
• Mention when the two children made their discoveies?
• "Executive Office of the President department, the Office of Science and Technology Policy" Missing an "and"?
• "event took place on the National Mall" On or in?
• "which took place July 15, 2010" This could be mentioned in the first sentence of the section.
• "As with the 2009 event, this was an attempt by the White House to increase motivation for children to enter STEM fields." In that case, why is STEM fields only linked this second time?

Seems to have been missed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why was the event moved from the White House between 2009 and 2015?
• Was Obama involved in the years between?
• "Astronomy Magazine came and passed out hand-outs" Add "staff" or "representatives"?
• "mentioned in White House Fact Sheet" In a?
• ", as being supported by the President" What is meant by this? Why not just "it was mentioned that the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite was supported by..."
• "stating they had a zero tolerance practice in place" Against what?
• "written in 2014 by Arlin Crotts" You only mention this author in the intro. Why no mention of the author of the other book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkMonk (talk • contribs)

"by Arlin Crotts" is still only mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions. I went through them all point-by-point and addressed them with direct changes to the article. I noted these with edit summaries as per GA Review when I made the changes. I thought these were all quite wise recommendations, so I made the edits accordingly. Hopefully this article is now satisfactory. Thanks again for your review, FunkMonk, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, I have commented under two points that seem to be unadressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:Okay, these two are both now done. Hopefully now the article is all set. :) — Cirt (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, what I meant with STEM is that you say "As with the 2009 event". If the 2009 event had the same purpose, why is STEM not mentioned already where that event is covered in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:Very good point, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it. Now reads better for our readers to improve chronological flow. :) — Cirt (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, with that done, I'll now pass the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! — Cirt (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)