Talk:Hippocamp (moon)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Need some time to look it over in detail, but my first impression is that the article seems to be in pretty good shape. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 18:05, 14 October 2020 (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:
 * Mostly quite clear, with a couple exceptions:
 * Unify tense or cut back on the use of conditional (definite "was captured" sounds strange right next to conditional "would have been...eccentric").
 * "In this case, had the two moons formed separately, the much smaller Hippocamp would have either collided with or have been ejected by the much larger Proteus" How can the moons form separately if one was a part of the other?
 * Explain the term "disrupted" more clearly. Is this synonymous with "broken apart"?


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Fix styling of "Voyager 2s cameras" with ' per Naming_conventions_(ships))
 * remove CBAT as unessary WP:jargon since it's never used elsewhere in the article.
 * remove CBAT as unessary WP:jargon since it's never used elsewhere in the article.


 * 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:
 * Nicely put together citation formatting.
 * Nicely put together citation formatting.


 * 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:
 * Couple concerns:
 * Merriam-Webster citation is for the part of the brain, not the mythological animal. (maybe instead?)
 * "Provide accurate and verified facts through intensive research" sounds incredibly earnest, but looks like factsjustforkids.com is WP:SELFPUB and with a wikipedia citation, is WP:CIRC. Should be replaced with a better source.
 * "Anon. (1899) "Invocation to Neptune", Poems, New York, p. 84" what is this? A book? Can you provide a isbn, publisher, or lccn? I'm not sure how to WP:V this.


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Information follows the sources.
 * Information follows the sources.


 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Seems to be original prose.
 * Seems to be original prose.


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Not a well-studied astronomical object, but the article provides plenty of information from what's known.
 * Not a well-studied astronomical object, but the article provides plenty of information from what's known.


 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Focus is pretty consistent to the topic.
 * Focus is pretty consistent to the topic.


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Main point of controversy would be credit, but this is handled pretty well (see discussion on talk page).
 * Main point of controversy would be credit, but this is handled pretty well (see discussion on talk page).


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Recent changes are relatively minor.
 * Recent changes are relatively minor.


 * 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:
 * The copyright tags on the pictures are as they should be.
 * The copyright tags on the pictures are as they should be.


 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Nice use of pictures/captions.
 * Nice use of pictures/captions.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold The article is very close. A couple places where the prose is a little unclear, and some references to be improved. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made all the suggested changes, and I would like to clear up a few concerns:
 * "Provide accurate and verified facts through intensive research"
 * It turns out this unreliable source came from this edit in September, which I haven't checked before since I assumed it to be a faithful edit. I don't find this source helpful, so I've decided to remove it entirely.


 * "Anon. (1899) "Invocation to Neptune", Poems, New York, p. 84"
 * I've retrieved the original source on Google Books, but the About This Book page lacks any information or description. Looking through the contents of the book, this is apparently a digitalized copy of a bequest of Evert Jansen Wendell from the Harvard College Library. I assume this person is the author of those poems, though I'm currently unsure about it. N rco0e   (talk · contribs)   05:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the link. The author of the poems doesn't seem to be written by Evert Jansen Wendell. I see he was born 1860, but one of the poems from his book, "The child and the pebble" seems to be much older, published in several American newspapers in 1852., , . The newspapers all mention that specific poem being a translation from German. Not a mystery I can solve here though. I agree the edits address the issues, I'm going to pass. Nice job. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 17:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)