Talk:Hollow Moon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

General comments

 * The references are in more than one format, with names variously as "Forename Surname", as "Surname, AB", or as "A. Surname". Personally I'd recommend a standardized "Surname, Forename" but any one format will do.
 * Done - only one ref was last/first, so I went with author Bromley86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose the named books in the "In literature" section are approximately self-citing, but it would be better at least to provide definite page ranges (in a blue-numbered reference), and best to cite a reliable source which comments on the fact that each book mentions a hollow moon.
 * Done - rm section, as it's OR (can't find a RS that discusses their mentions of a hollow moon) Bromley86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Specific comments

 * There's one "dubious - discuss" tag which needs to be sorted out.
 * Done - followed advice of editor that added tag and called it a fringe theory. I do not have any reference for this, as sources tend to refer to it as a conspiracy theory (the article reflects this), so I've added a note to avoid problems down the line.  Bromley86 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nosov's novel title should begin with a capital letter.
 * Not necessary - section removed, so now unnecessary. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The SI units for polar moment of inertia (m4) should be supplied after each usage (each value).
 * Not done - none of the sources, which are heavyweight academic ones, mention the units, so I would be very reluctant to do so. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please wikilink "density" and replace the units in the "Density" section with kg/m3.
 * Partial done - I didn't wl the first mention of density, as that was just conversational, whereas wling the mention in the Density section is useful. I didn't convert the units from those given in the source, as that could cause confusion, but did sup.  Will convert if required.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The "In literature" section is currently formatted as a list. This would be better as continuous prose. It should also be expanded and cited to discuss each usage rather than merely asserting it.
 * Not necessary - section previously removed as not presented in RS. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please wikilink "Phobos".
 * Done Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to be extended slightly to reflect the article's contents. I'd suggest adding the dates that both Hollow Moon and Hollow Earth first appeared.
 * Done Halley and Wells' dates now in Lead.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The "Density" section does not exactly explain how the Moon can have a density of only 3.3kg/m3. Perhaps what is needed is a short cited statement that this is the density of such-and-such types of rock.
 * Done - McGeddon addressed this after the review. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The heading "Arguments advanced in support" does not exactly match that section's contents; perhaps something like "Arguments for and against" or "Claims and rebuttals" would fit better.
 * Done - Claims and rebuttals. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "of the what was then" - please remove the stray "the".
 * Done - IP editor fixed post-review. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please remove the empty External links section.
 * Done - FockeWulf FW 190 removed post-review. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The images are suitable for the article and are PD.

The prose is suitable for GA.

The article is correctly structured.

Australian hollow moon theory

 * Australian hollow moon theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.128.28 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing
Nom has not replied to any communication, so I'm closing this now. If anyone wishes to take up the reins, they are welcome to ping me and I expect we can quickly bring this article to GA status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, took a big break from WP. Thanks for reviewing.  Back now and addressing the points; will ping you when it's ready.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging . The article's all good to go, when you have a chance.  Bromley86 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @ OK, I suggest you renominate it (the old GA1 is now closed) and I can then swiftly complete the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @. Cheers, done.  Bromley86 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)