Talk:1639 transit of Venus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 19:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the major issue this has on a quick skim is Episode 13: ''Anonymous (24 November 2009). "An important anniversary in the history of science". The Renaissance Mathematics. wordpress.com. Retrieved 11 May 2012.''

Can you state why this blog is acceptable under WP:RS? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply Er - it's not. I've no idea why I put that one in, I mustn't have realised it was a blog. I've replaced it. Richerman ''  (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. I'm afraid this is going to be a fairly boring review beyond that point, then. This is an excellently-written, very competently-put-together article. Still, there are a few points.

General Reply Hmm - I think some of those are a bit controversial - ,and, - that's at least one too many. Richerman ''  (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of missing commas. I've copyedited accordingly, also making other small adjustments, so this may be considered dealt with
 * I do try to cut down on my Victorianism when it comes to commas, but a few may slip by. Feel free to remove some, but I think that more than there were does make it more readable. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However, do note that, and , is actually required in some cases. When the structure is something like [Independent clause], and, [comma-delineated phrase connected to IC2], [independent clause 2]. it's always necessary. For example. "Billy went to the market, and, while he was there, Sally saw him." Where I tend to exceed normal usage is that, when commas are optional in modern usage, I tend to default to putting them in. Still, I think the article did need more commas than it had.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Background "suggesting that observations of a Venus transit would be more useful scientifically." - This reads, in context, as saying that observations of the Venus transit would be more useful than observations of a Mercury transit. I suspect you mean that the observations of the Mercury transit proving scientifically valuable indicated that the Venus transit would also be valuable, which isn't the same thing.

Reply No, it means that Mercury was too small to be useful for techniques such as the parallax method but I'll check up on that and clarify it. Richerman ''  (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

William Crabtree Reply I would translate it as 'We Keplarians' but I've never found a reference for it anywhere. I'll put that in and see if anyone objects later. Richerman ''  (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Transit of Mercury
 * It would be good to provide a translation for "Nos Keplari".
 * "[...]around one minute of arc when seen as the bright morning star close to the Sun" - I'd suggest something like "[...]around one minute of arc in its normal position of the bright morning star close to the Sun." - I would've copyedited this, but was worried about exact phrasing.

Reply That sounds reasonable to me. Richerman ''  (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a rule for promotion of these. If the problems are trivial and few, there's really no need to wait on them for promotion. This is an excellent article, and, whilst the... three points raised... should be fixed, I really don't think that's enough to block GA. Indeed, once they are fixed, I would consider this immediately ready to go to FAC. ✅. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for your review and the kind words. I was thinking of going to FAC with it but I'll need to standardise the citation style first. Then I'll have to make sure I have the time to deal with the flak :) Richerman ''   (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)