Talk:Astronomy/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. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Reviewer: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Citations
 * There are at least four dead links.
 * Fixed. Ruslik_ Zero 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The citation style needs to be made consistent. Sometimes the author's last name is given first, sometimes the first, sometimes publisher details are included, sometimes they aren't, some citations use cite web, others are constructed manually ...
 * Fixed. Ruslik_ Zero 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "Astronomers of early civilizations performed methodical observations of the night sky, and astronomical artifacts have been found from much earlier periods." Much earlier periods than what? How is "civilization" being defined here?


 * "Since the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches." Should that be "during the 20th century ..."?


 * "Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring and analyzing data, mainly using basic principles of physics." As opposed to what?


 * "Old or even ancient astronomy is not to be confused with astrology ...". Reads very awkwardly to me. "Old astronomy"?


 * "2009 was declared by the UN to be the International Year of Astronomy 2009 (IYA2009). The focus was on enhancing the public’s understanding and engagement with astronomy." Is this important enough to be included in the lead?
 * Fixed all of these problems with the lead. Agree with all the assessment statements. Used the history of astronomy article as a benchmark for re-writing where the language could be improved, and to add a couple of example wikilinks. Removed the International Year of Astronomy 2009 mention in the lead - there is an external link about it which is sufficient.Puzl bustr (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * History
 * Before tools such as the telescope were invented early study of the stars had to be conducted from the only vantage points available, namely tall buildings and high ground using the bare eye." Curious phrasing. Was the more usual "naked eye" considered too prurient?
 * Fixed. "naked eye" is much more usual. Puzl bustr (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Scientific revolution
 * Most of this is uncited. What are the sources it's based on?
 * I added references. Ruslik_ Zero 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

the surface was mountainous." Why "was" mountanous. Is it no longer mountainous?
 * "Galileo's sketches and observations of the Moon revealed that


 * Observational astronomy
 * Why is information wikilinked?
 * Stellar astronomy
 * What's the source for the 4th paragraph?
 * Added. Ruslik_ Zero 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cosmology
 * Second, third, and fifth paragraphs ought to be cited.


 * Major questions in astronomy
 * "Whose questions are these? The author's?
 * Changed to "problems". Ruslik_ Zero 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is too good to delist, but it does still need some work. I'm closing this review as a keep on the basis that the work will be done. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)