Talk:Sakurai's Object/GA1

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

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion

 * Are you sure that 3a is satisfied? While I haven't looked through in much detail I'd be surprised if this relatively short article was a good summary of the nearly 300 papers which mention the subject nearly 80 papers specifically about the subject. Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the additional note 3 should clarify your doubt (it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.). Regards— UY Scuti <sup style="color:green; font-family:Times;">Talk  07:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment and concern - when evaluating GA's I try to balance between the criteria and the community expectations for a GA. I firmly believe that this article meets the criteria, and agree with that the "main aspects" of the topic are covered adequately. I would advise editors that this article's scope is not yet sufficient for it to be classed a FA, which requires significantly more coverage --  samtar talk or stalk 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)