Talk:Interferometry/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) * All title headings should be correctly capitalized  I believe they already meet MOS???
 * 2) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) * Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.  All "cite web" references now have publisher and access date. Page authors have been added where found. Publication/copyright dates have been added where found.
 * Clarification needed: Although I can always find a publisher (almost by definition, a web reference suitable as a source provides that sort of information), not all web pages have a named author or publication date.
 * Clarification needed: Although I can always find a publisher (almost by definition, a web reference suitable as a source provides that sort of information), not all web pages have a named author or publication date.


 * 1) * More sources needed in sections like "Basic principles".  Done
 * 2) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) *Images need succinct captions.  None were missing captions.
 * Clarification requested. The figures are tightly integrated with the text. With two exceptions, each figure is referred to in the text by figure number and its significance to the subject matter is discussed in the main body of the text, sometimes in great depth. Therefore, in most cases, I considered "suitable captions" to be relatively short, just enough to identify the subject matter. I have no "decorative" figures. They are all important to the text. The word "succinct" means "expressed in few words; concise; terse." Does that mean that you want my already brief captions to be shorter? Or longer?
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) *Images need succinct captions.  None were missing captions.
 * Clarification requested. The figures are tightly integrated with the text. With two exceptions, each figure is referred to in the text by figure number and its significance to the subject matter is discussed in the main body of the text, sometimes in great depth. Therefore, in most cases, I considered "suitable captions" to be relatively short, just enough to identify the subject matter. I have no "decorative" figures. They are all important to the text. The word "succinct" means "expressed in few words; concise; terse." Does that mean that you want my already brief captions to be shorter? Or longer?

I am working on the other points. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) * An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.  Done
 * 2) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Like to make it succinct, you could change "A view of the solar disk in 2003-Oct-30 during a period of some of the largest solar activity events since the advent of space-based solar observing, taken by the EIT at 195 Å" to "A view of the solar disk in 2003-Oct-30 taken by taken by the EIT at 195 Å" because a lot of solar activity on a particular day isn't that rare. And when I first saw the web references I found some of the access dates missing.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 06:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Halloween storm of 2003 was quite exceptional. However, I shortened this caption, since this is an article about interferometry, not solar dynamics. Likewise I moved some information from the Fig. 17 caption to the main body of the text. However, a similar attempt to move information from the Fig. 2 caption to the text body didn't work. Likewise, in Fig. 15, the descriptive elements in the caption are essential to understanding the figure and belong with the figure, not separated from it in the main body of the text. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And about the title headings. You could change "Double path versus common path" to "Double path versus Common path".-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No can do. That violates WP:MOS which states "headings are in sentence case, not title case" i.e. "the initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects)". Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, yeah I am very sorry.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What else needs to be done? As I explained earlier, I believe that the captions for Fig. 2 and Fig. 15 need to remain the length that they are. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you add some tags where it is tagged cn -- Ankit Maity <sup style="color:magenta;">Talk <sub style="color:green;">Contribs 11:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do.
 * Could you remove the lines like "Fig. 5 illustrates the operation of three amplitude splitting interferometers." (except if it's in brackets)? You know, the captions are already given and the other point is that could you remove the phrase "Figure 5" and all. Suppose if its given like "Figure X" change it to the figure in the right or whatever. -- Ankit Maity <sup style="color:magenta;">Talk <sub style="color:green;">Contribs 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Referring to images by their relative placement is highly discouraged, since different browsers, monitor sizes, zoom factors etc. will change their relative placement. In Manual of Style/Images we read: "Avoid referring to images as being on the left or right. Image placement is different for viewers of the mobile version of Wikipedia, and is meaningless to people having pages read to them by assistive software. Instead, use captions to identify images." I regularly test my pages against Chrome, Firefox, IE (compatibility and non-compatibility modes are very different!), iPad and Nook. I will reduce the redundancies that you pointed out, but the tight integration of text and images requires me to use explicit figure references. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- Ankit Maity <sup style="color:magenta;">Talk <sub style="color:green;">Contribs 16:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced the redundancy that you noted and added the requested references. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)