Talk:Altair/GA1

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

Starting review.- Running On  Brains  05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

A nice article, but could use a few fixes, mainly related to improving readability: If all these concerns are addressed, I will happily pass this as a Good Article. Good luck!- Running On  Brains  06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Words like "groundbreaking" need justification.
 * Jargon words:
 * "Synthetic aperture techniques" is quite technical, and could use an explanation/wikilink.
 * "superposition of oscillatory periods"
 * It seems unnecessary to directly credit scientists within the article prose. For instance, "This phenomenon, known as gravity darkening or the von Zeipel effect, was confirmed for Altair by measurements made by the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer in 2001, and analyzed by Ohishi et al. (2004) and Peterson et al. (2006)." could easily be shortened to "This phenomenon, known as gravity darkening or the von Zeipel effect, was confirmed for Altair by measurements made in 2001." This makes the article much more readable IMHO, and the articles are still credited in the footnotes.
 * "The image was published in 2007 and can be seen on the left" The image is much further up on my screen.
 * "North is up and East is left" You should specify what you mean by North and East. Is it Earth-north? Galactic north?
 * The table in the "Visual companions" section is right-aligned, can it be centered?
 * I'm a bit uneasy about the license used on File:Altair PR image6.jpg, listed as "Own work by uploader", Public Domain. It seems like an image from a scientific paper. Do you have any further information about this image's licensing, or did you just find this image on Commons?
 * "Synthetic aperture techniques" is quite technical, and could use an explanation/wikilink.
 * "superposition of oscillatory periods"
 * It seems unnecessary to directly credit scientists within the article prose. For instance, "This phenomenon, known as gravity darkening or the von Zeipel effect, was confirmed for Altair by measurements made by the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer in 2001, and analyzed by Ohishi et al. (2004) and Peterson et al. (2006)." could easily be shortened to "This phenomenon, known as gravity darkening or the von Zeipel effect, was confirmed for Altair by measurements made in 2001." This makes the article much more readable IMHO, and the articles are still credited in the footnotes.
 * "The image was published in 2007 and can be seen on the left" The image is much further up on my screen.
 * "North is up and East is left" You should specify what you mean by North and East. Is it Earth-north? Galactic north?
 * The table in the "Visual companions" section is right-aligned, can it be centered?
 * I'm a bit uneasy about the license used on File:Altair PR image6.jpg, listed as "Own work by uploader", Public Domain. It seems like an image from a scientific paper. Do you have any further information about this image's licensing, or did you just find this image on Commons?
 * Numbering your points in order:
 * 1, 2(a), 2(b), 4, 5: I rephrased the article.
 * 3: I think it's better to mention the investigators in the prose. Readers probably won't want to look at the footnotes.
 * 6: I centered the table.
 * 7: I suspect that File:Altair PR image6.jpg was uploaded by G. T. van Belle, who is one of the co-authors of the paper in question.  So, the "own work" tag may be wholly justified.  Anyway, to avoid these questions I replaced this image by an image tagged as fair use.
 * Spacepotato (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

...This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.
 * # 3 was more of a suggestion than a requirement. I think you will run into trouble if this goes to WP:FAC, since, IMHO, it chops up the prose unnecessarily. All the rest appear fixed though, so...

Cheers,  Running On  Brains  02:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)