Talk:Taurus (constellation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Aaahahhahahahahahaha, let's start complaining about things Seriously, I'll copyedit as I go (please revert me if'n I guff the meaning) and I'll jot queries below....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd note somewhere about the whole Beta Tauri/Gamma Aurigae issue.
  • Fixed. RJH (talk)

• Epsilon Tauri is listed as a see also for some reason. Should be a sentence or two on it and placed in the body of the text. Ditto Gliese 176 and other objects listed there.
  • Well, those are footnotes intended to clarify the infobox entries, rather than "See also" links. Is that still an issue? RJH (talk)
    • Hmmmmm, not a deal-breaker. Funny how seealso sections seem to work better for star articles than bio ones....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Decide what you want to call particular stars - you have zeta Tauri and ζ Tau within a few sentences - it's good to align them all.
  • I changed ζ Tau to ζ Tauri. The 'ζ' was listed earlier next to Zeta. RJH (talk)

• Looking at Category:Taurus (constellation) are there any other objects (variable stars, binaries, nebulae or galaxies) worth mentioning for an exhaustive list. At 27k the article isn't particularly large, so we can make it a really comprehensive directory.
  • There's always double stars, but how far do we want to take that before it starts becoming a catalogue? θ₁/θ₂ is mentioned as a "pretty pair visible to the naked eye". It could probably mention NGC 1514, which has historical importance, plus R Tauri, which is a Mira-type variable. I don't see much else that stands out prominently. RJH (talk)
    • Hmmm, I guess we have a trailblazer in Andromeda (constellation) now, which is definitely more listy. I guess given the size of the articles, we can afford to make them fairly comprehensive directories...for instance, the location of many objects is obscure...so having a link from where they are in the sky (i.e. which constellation they're in is very good) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Mmm, well I was definitely not interested in following the bullet-ed style of the Andromeda article. We already have a List of stars in Taurus article, so I was more or less focusing on making it a sampler of the highlights than in putting together a detailed catalog. Shrug. Probably that would be needed to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement of an FA article. RJH (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I suspect so, but not a biggie now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• If this is going to FAC, then references should all be in title case.
  • I wasn't planning on it, but I went through and make the case usage consistent. RJH (talk)
    • Oh dear....I meant, like, Title Case.....you did it all the other way... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
      • My understanding was that the titles all need to be one way or the other. I.e. just to be consistent, per WP:CITEVAR. RJH (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay - no biggie then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall, prose and referencing looks good. Little to nag about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: Meh. We're there...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'll try to add some more information in the future, but I think its got the important points covered. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)