Talk:Schiehallion experiment/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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.:
 * This article is only a few days old but, given the subject material, I doubt if it'll be the target of vandalism or edit warring.
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

Firstly, well done on this article. It is very close to GA status and the improvements I have to suggest are nitpicky and pedantic:
 * The lead is too short and does not fully cover the contents of the article. Consider summarizing the selection of the mountain, and the experimantal method in one paragraph each.
 * There are a few single-sentence paragraphs which make the flow of the article a bit choppy. These should be either expanded or absorbed into other paragraphs.
 * There is a big, ugly white space next to Hutton's table. The text of that section should wrap around it as it does with images.
 * Direct quotations need their inline citation directly after the quote, not at the end of the sentence.

I have put this article on hold for now. When the concerns I have raised are resolved, I will have no hesitation in passing it. Again, well done on writing a very fine article. Reyk YO!  02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have had a go at tackling your concerns, particularly regarding a rewrite of the lead. Although this does not contain as much as a paragraph each on the selection of the mountain and the manner of the experiment, they are both provided with a few sentences that should clarify how the whole thing worked. The single-sentence paragraphs have been incorporated into those next to them, with the exception of the mathematical analysis section, for which I feel to do so would make comprehension difficult. The quote issues has been addressed and the whitespace adjacent to the density table now removed. This last seems to have been a browser-related problem, for it wrapped correctly in Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Yea, Internet Explorer sucketh mightily. &mdash; BillC talk 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hearken unto the words of Bill, for he speaketh wisely. IE is rubbish, but using it is not a crime punishable by wonky formatting and misaligned text. I'm more than happy with the changes you've made since I reviewed it, and I'm passing it as a good article. Well done. Reyk  YO!  21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)