Talk:Wolf 359/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: TimothyRias (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting the review of this article. First impression, another strong contribution from user:RJHall, might be a bit technical at some points. I'll post some more detailed comments in a minute. TimothyRias (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments[edit]

In the lead, and latter in the Outer atmosphere section are the following statements:
The photosphere of the star has a temperature of about 2,800 K, low enough for absorption lines of compounds such as water and titanium(II) oxide to have been observed.

This temperature is sufficiently cool that molecular lines appear in the spectrum, ...

It is not immediately clear why low temperature would imply the appearance of certain absorption lines. (I can make an educated guess based on my own knowledge of physics and astrophysics, but a lay reader may not.) In particular, it is unclear for a reader if the implication is that at higher temperatures the compounds would be present build the absoption lines are absent, or that the compounds are simply not present. I assume the latter, but to lay reader the stress on the appearance of lines may suggest the former. I know this is completely obvious to someone with a background in astronomy, but it might not be to a lay reader. This could be made a little clearer.
For the sentence The orbital eccentricity is 0.156, and the star can travel as far as 440 light-years (130 pc) away from the galactic plane. I would suggest a change along the line: The (galactic) orbit has an eccentrity of 0.156 and the star can travel as far as 444 light-years (136 pc) away from the galactic plane.

And that is about it for specific comments. Good job! TimothyRias (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to address these comments. Thank you for the review.—RJH (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
See comments above. Overall the prose is slightly technical and dry. (But what else can you really expect from an encyclopic article about a star.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Excellently referenced
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers about anything you can say about a nearby star.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues in visible history
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Could maybe add file:Wolf359incelestia.jpg or file:Wolf359.jpg for flavour.
I added both. Thanks for the suggestions.—RJH (talk)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
TimothyRias (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked in with some of the peer reviewers that voiced concerns about accessibility. Although the text is still quite technical they see no objection to passing the prose for GA. That only leaves me to congratulate the editors of this article for a job well-done, I'm passing this article for GA. If in the future it is brought up for FA, I imagine that the prose will be judged too technical, so there is one point for improvement.TimothyRias (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since I'm perhaps a little too familiar with the subject matter, sometimes it can be difficult to determine what parts may be considered too technical by others. If there are particular rough patches, please let me know and I'll try to address them. Thanks again for the review.—RJH (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]