Talk:Stingray Nebula/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Section-by-section review

Lead
 * Take out "Browbowski 94" in parenthetical cite here. Change it to a ref with the tags.
 * Change "The Stingray" to "The nebula"
 * Make " and it is located 18k light years away" into a separate sentence.
 * You make reference to "Bowbowski, et al." Say who the "et al. is". For example: "Browbowski and other researchers at the University of X ..."
 * Wikilink "magnitude" as it has a certain meaning in in Astronomy contexts
 * Make the "--" dash into an —

History
 * Explain what an 'emission line star' is.
 * Put the full name of the acronym organization
 * Remove the parenthetical cite. The ref link to the source is fine.
 * Move the cite from "Browbowski" to the end of "observed it"
 * Explain why it is called the Stingray Nebula and put a cite for him/her using the Hubble to find it. It may be the same source saying he/she found it.
 * Confused here. It says it was observed as a PPNe - how does it make Bobrowski the 'finder'?

PNN
 * Need a cite for the first sentence's claim
 * Same for the second sentence.
 * Again, using the ref tags are fine instead of the parenthetical usage here.
 * Put info on what a PNN is.
 * Put info on why it is significant, as this was seemingly mentioned in the lead.

Notes
 * Fix the notes so that the 'a' subpoint is the sole thing in the 'notes' section while the other cites can go under a "References" heading.

Concluding Thoughts
 * This article is very short and thus may not meet the GA mandate that an article be broad it its scope of the topic. I suggest putting more information in to expand the article.
 * This will be placed "on hold", allowing a week's time to fix the article before I make an assessment for GA. If you have any questions, feel free to post it on my talk page. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Other misc. issues - Lord Roem (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead doesn't need cite
 * Lead should be a summary of the information. Some of the content is not referenced in the lead and visa versa.

Conclusion
No attempt to resolve concerns --> GA nominations will be failed. Lord Roem (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)