Talk:Area 51/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to pass this article, but unfortunately it is something of a mess at present. I will allow plenty of time for changes. Let me know if you feel it should be closed.
 * Lead
 * Access date required for fn 1 ✅
 * Instances of fn 4 require a page number - everywhere


 * Geography
 * References required at end of all three paragraphs. ✅


 * History


 * fn 9 and 20 requires a title and publisher ✅
 * fn 17 and 22 require a page number ✅
 * Conversion for runway length ✅
 * Suggest dropping the coordinates ✅


 * U-2 Program


 * We don't normally capitalise code words on Wikipedia, but you don't need to change this unless you are aiming for A-class or FAC as MOS conformance is not required at GA  ❌ I am not currently aiming for either of them.
 * fn 24 requires page numbers - everywhere ✅


 * OXCART Program
 * Reference required for third paragraph ✅


 * Foreign technology evaluation


 * Reference required for second paragraph
 * Citation required tag ✅
 * Citations required on last two paragraphs ✅
 * fn 33 requires a page number ✅ removed


 * Have Blue/F-117 program
 * Paragraphs six and seven require references


 * U.S. government's positions on Area 51


 * Last sentences of first two paragraphs require references ✅


 * U.S. government's positions on Area 51


 * fn 6 requires a page


 * Environmental lawsuit


 * First paragraph requires references ✅
 * Last sentence of second paragraph requires references ✅


 * 1974 Skylab photography
 * Last sentences of first two paragraphs require references ✅


 * UFO and other conspiracy theories
 * Last sentences of first two paragraphs require references


 * First I've heard of NERVA at Area 51 (it was at Area 18 25) Double check. ✅
 * Your right. However its referenced by a book which I don't have access to. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 12:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have the book, but not with me. I would help out, but it would have to wait until the New Year. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I wasn't going to be editing much over Christmas anyways. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 16:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * However looking at the book online (no page numbers) confirms Area 25. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * See also


 * Suggest cutting this back
 * ✅ Thx811 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Placing on hold.

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have added page numbers for fn 24, but when I checked open library I found that all the others are unavailable! What do I do? REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 16:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fn 4 requires page numbers. I can help with this one.

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fn 6 requires page numbers. Add from the online version. ✅ Someone else appears to have done it.
 * Fn 9, 22 and 25 require title and publisher ✅
 * Fn 19 and 28 - do we have page numbers? Otherwise just remove the offending sentences. ✅
 * Fn 33 - what is this? ✅
 * I have fixed all the issues apart from the F-117 section. I can't seem to find sources for it. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 11:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added them. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * The layout style guideline says: "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." It is not consistent in this article. Invoking IAR on this.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: