Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Milky Way/1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "explain the origin of the Milky Way and give it its name" is one example. There were a few more areas that could use improvement, a copyedit would seem to be in order.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Introduction is too short (WP:INTRO). An overabundance of external links, not sure if all of these are relevant (WP:External links). A few of the wikilinks point to disambig pages see here.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Vast areas of the article are uncited, and there are a few {{citation needed}} templates. Infobox is missing cites (although some may be discussed in the main body, it is necessary to provide refs in tables/infoboxes). Also, a few of the links are dead, see here.

   C. No original research:

   Uncited statements may contain original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After careful consideration, I am delisting this article and reassessing it as B-class. References are the main issue, and although the article is well-sourced, the entire "Appearance from Earth" section is unreferenced. Feel free to renominate once a copyedit and reference check has been completed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this not have been discussed at WP:GAR first? Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I conducted an individual reassessment. If you would like to request a community reassessment, simply add {{subst:GAR}} to the article talk page, save the page, and follow the link. That is not a problem, but the bottom line is the article needs work. Trust me, your time would be better spent improving the article, and then renominating when it is ready. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)