Talk:Cosmic ray/GA1

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

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk • contrib) 03:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I will review. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: put the "Reviewer" line above the line and made some adjustments, so the bot can identify who the reviewer is for the GAN page. (Hope I've got it right.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome; thanks! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Some preliminary things to do:


 * Refs 42, 46, and 54, appear to be dead.
 * The "History of Cosmic Rays" link and the "NOAA FTP" link appear to be dead.
 * Make sure every paragraph has at least one ref.
 * If there is not a ref at the end of a paragraph, all text after the last ref of the paragraph should be obvious stuff.
 * Write the "sources of cosmic rays" section.
 * Make sure that there is no text squished between images, and that all images are small enough.
 * Expand the "research and experiments" section to include prose on some of the most important experiments.
 * What is the point of the "references" section? All the refs appear to be in the "notes section".
 * Trim the external links section to include only the most important links (4 or 5 is a good number).

StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've actually put the article on hold for now. Do keep reviewing, but I feel that I should work on this article a bit more following your recommendations before this article is once again actively reviewed. Wer900 • talk 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wer900, just so you know: it isn't for you to put the review on hold, it's completely up to the reviewer to decide, and the review takes care of it if so. (Right now, the status is "onreview", not "onhold".) Similarly, the reviewer can decide how long a hold should last, and can end the review if she or he feels the article is unlikely to be ready to be listed as a good article in a reasonable amount of time. I have removed your "on hold" template from the top of this page; it isn't how reviews are put on hold anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, Wer900, send me a message on my talk page when you want me to resume. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been a month since the above. Is there any hope of the review being resumed soon? If not, it should probably be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could review it, if you think yourself able. Wer900 • talk 03:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'll leave that to StringTheory11. I gather that the go-ahead has been given, and StringTheory11 should be starting shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll resume the review.


 * Many paragraphs need a ref. Each para needs at least one ref, and every fact (unless it is something like "the sky is blue" needs a ref).
 * In the "research and experiments" section, I would include some more prose on the most important experiments, followed by the listing of the remaining ones.
 * Some of the changes from above still need to be implemented.

Overall, I see no problems with clarity, deepness to the topic, nor prose. Once these are fixed, I think it can pass GA. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for missing this on my watchlist. I'll make these changes shortly. Wer900 • talk 22:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There appears to have been some work on April 29, then nothing, and no response here. Since it's been another two weeks, I'd like to make a suggestion to StringTheory11: set a hard deadline for the changes you feel the article needs to be done. If they're done by that date, pass the article; if not, fail it. This article is by far the longest-running GA review, at over 70 days. That's just too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above changes were implemented long ago; I just wasn't able to strike them out then. Wer900 • talk 22:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, awesome! I'm not watching the article, just this page. I'll take another look at the article again before the end fo the weekend. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so there's a lot of stuff that still isn't referenced, so I can't pass the GA review. As BlueMoonset notes above, it's just been too long since the GA review started for me to pass this time, so I have to fail it. Once the issues are fixed, feel free to renominate it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)