Talk:4 Vesta/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. Overall, this article is very well-written and, for the most part, well-referenced. Comprehensiveness, neutrality, stability, and images are all fine. A few concerns came up during my review:


 * 1) One or both of the lists in the "Geology" section may work better as prose.
 * I think some sort of geometrically sequential arrangement is appropriate, as both indicate sequences. I think prose would be much harder to follow, especially for someone trying to skim the article. However, I do agree that the list format is not the greatest for legibility. I've converted to tables. They may need some adjustment, but see what you think. kwami (talk)
 * 1) The last paragraph of the "Geology" section (the thickness of the crust) should be referenced.
 * done Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Near the end of the second paragraph in the "Surface features" section, a reference is placed directly after "Hubble images". References should normally be placed after punctuation to make it clear what they are referencing. Does this cover the information before the reference, after the reference, or both?
 * "Interestingly Vesta was not disrupted nor resurfaced by an impact of this magnitude." is a non-sequitour. Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Likewise, in the final paragraph of that section, does the reference cover the entire paragraph?
 * 2) The "Exploration" section should be referenced.
 * 3) In the "Exploration" section, Dawn is italicized the first time but not in subsequent mentions. Is there a reason for this?
 * Nope. All now cap'd. kwami (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can more information be provided for Reference 26?
 * Done. kwami (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I will place this on hold for a week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If progress is being made, an extension will be granted if necessary. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note: While looking for sources for the "Exploration" section, I came across this article published by Reuters. Facts #2 and 3 looked familiar, so I checked an old revision of Wikipedia's 4 Vesta article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4_Vesta&oldid=160069737, last edited three days before the Reuters article). It turns out that Reuters copied them and pasted them directly from here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about the possible de-listing GaryColemanFan, I've been busy with other projects off of Wikipedia. I'll get right to assisting with the assessment. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In Favor per Reviewing good articles:
 * The article is NPOV
 * No cleanup requested
 * No edit wars appear to be going on
 * I observe no grammatical errors
 * Clearly written and broad in coverage in regards to the topic
 * All images tagged and licensed and usage is allowed

However I'm not sure what wiki's standard is about it being "current" but obviously the Dawn mission justifies that a bit, and I don't know if all the links are reliable, can someone else check this or tell me how to do it?--IdLoveOne (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to fix remaining issues today. Ruslik (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed 4 and 5. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the references (yet again), and addressed the remaining points. Looks good to me now. Urhixidur (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Q. Is the following paragraph really needed in an article about Vesta?
 * NASA attempted to cancel Dawn in 2006, citing budget pressures and technical issues, but scientists appealed and won an additional $100 million to continue the program. Total mission costs will now be about $450 million.

Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to RJH, the total cost of the mission doesn't seem particularly important. Since there was no soucred provided, I removed that sentence and combined the final two paragraphs.

All of my concerns have now been addressed, so I am going to close this reassessment and keep this article listed as a GA. Thanks you to everyone who helped, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good job!&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, but what about Pallas, Hygiea and Juno? --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already performed recent GA reassessments of Pallas and Juno, and both articles retained their GA status. Because Hygiea was listed as a GA after August 2007, it is not included in the first round of GA sweeps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)