Talk:Light-year/GA1

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

Reviewer: Crowz  RSA  01:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing verifies the figures provided in
 * exactly 9,460,730,472,580.8 km (about 9.5 Pm)
 * about 5,878,625,373,183.608 miles (about 6 trillion miles)
 * about 63,241.1 astronomical units
 * about 0.306601 parsecs
 * exactly 31,557,600 light-seconds


 * a defined speed of light of 299,792,458 m/s, both included in the IAU (1976) System of Astronomical Constants, used since 1984. a lot of this sentence isn't verified by
 * is the product of the J1900.0 mean tropical year and the defined speed of light. There needs to be a reference.
 * The "Distances in light-years" section really lacks references.
 * The "Light-month" section is only two sentences long, and needs to be expanded.
 * Reference 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 22 are incomplete.
 * The whole references section needs to be fixed up, as their is inconsistency between dates, the use of 'retrieved' and 'accessed', and other stuff.
 * "Distances in light-years" is a bad title for a section, per MOS:HEAD. Something like "Distances" would be better.
 * English words need to be consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article.
 * There are several other issues in the article, so I would suggest a thorough copyedit and a peer review before re nominating it.


 * Result
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Crowz RSA  22:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The figures provided in the list highlighted in green on this page are independently verifiable by anyone with a calculator and the light year definitions (one Julian year in seconds, multiplied by one metre). Although there may be some link decay, at the time those numbers were originally calculated, there were valid links to justify the choice of a Julian year in those calculations and definitions for both those source units. I dispute the claim that these numbers are unsourced.

The information in the distances in light years section is verified through the links to the articles they collate.

I have no idea who added the light month section, or why. Perhaps someone merged a light month article into this one, not realising that the very concept of a light year as a scientific unit of measurement doesn't really exist outside of poorly written SF.

Can't comment on the incomplete references. The WP MoS has instructed so many changes through the years on their correct style that I lost interest in keeping up with that years ago.

When I refactored this article many years ago, I did some research into its history, and determined that its first major 'complete' state was written primarily in British English. By WP policy, that's how it should now remain.

There are several other items that I would like to query, but I am too passive-aggressive to write them here. Rhialto (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)