Talk:Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012
 | Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012 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. Review: February 19, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | A fact from Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
What time? edit
I'm sure there are many people that will be reading about this awesome event, but would be interested to know specifically what time it's going to happen in their local area. Perhaps someone could either post a chart giving times by location, or a link to a site that lists what time the event will occur in their area? I've tried to find such a site, but couldn't find anything yet. Zul32 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if this will help you but I found a website that at least shows when and where for the USA. Go to accuweather.com click the 'weather for sunday's solar eclipse' link, down where it says SEE ALSO click the 'when, where to watch sunday's solar eclipse across the US' link. 174.47.128.253 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Annularity not visible from Canada edit
The article text includes Canada as being in the path of annularity. I do not see it in the map provided. This inaccuracy should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.190.178 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I added a photo edit
I added a photo of the annular solar eclipse of 20 May 2011 today. I saw it on Flickr this morning. I'm somewhat of a novice with this, hope I did it correctly. I uploaded the image file to Commons, included CC license, other info, categorized it etc., then inserted it here. I hope that was acceptable, and done correctly! --FeralOink (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ultimograph5 (talk · contribs) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Starting to review this one as well. Ultimograph5 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Criteria edit
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review edit
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | Well written, clear and concise. | Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | Complies. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | References where necessary. | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | All citations are reliable. | Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | None found. | Pass
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No plagiarism. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Major aspects (and minor ones) all covered. | Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | Focused. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Neutral. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Stable. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All is fine here. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Appropriate images. While there are a large amount of them, they provide an in-depth view to readers of what the event looked like. | Pass
|
Result edit
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass |
I will pass this. I think it meets the standard, but maybe cut down on the photos. |
Discussion edit
Please add any related discussion here.
Additional notes edit
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
