Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System/GA1

GA Review

Passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 01:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Gor-orbit-diagram.svg - Looks good.
File:Fictional Planets of the Solar System.svg - Looks good

Prose review

Honestly, I can't find anything to fault in the prose.

Source review

Is it necessary to have three, four, or five references for one statement? Feels like overkill.
- I could probably reduce the number of sources in some instances, but the reason multiple sources are cited for each sentence tends to be that they verify slightly different information. For instance: the sentence Anomalies in Mercury's orbit around the Sun led Urbain Le Verrier to propose the existence of an unseen planet with an orbit interior to Mercury's exerting gravitational influence in 1859, similar to how irregularities in Uranus' orbit had led to his mathematical prediction of Neptune and its subsequent discovery in 1846. cites three sources, where one verifies that Vulcan was proposed in 1859, while another verifies that Urbain Le Verrier was the one who predicted Neptune (in addition to Vulcan), and the third verifies that the anomalies in Uranus' orbit was what led to the discovery (not just prediction) of Neptune. I fairly often end up with situations like this due to the way I write articles, where different parts of a sentence (occasionally just a single word) rely on different sources. Another reason is that I tend to cite all of the highest-quality sources (for my science fiction articles these are usually The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia) that are relevant to a particular aspect to keep track of which sources can be used to expand upon certain points when writing the article (so there are probably places where I could make do with fewer sources than are currently cited—but I would need to check each individual instance so I don't accidentally remove a source that is crucial as a result of my citing habits described in the previous sentence). I prefer putting the sources at the end of the sentence in cases like this rather than in the middle of the sentence after the specific point that particular source verifies, and this leads to a cluster of sources at the end of the sentence (this is a point I've elaborated upon before). At any rate, this is not part of the WP:Good article criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely fair, and entirely true that it's not a GA criterion. I just wanted to flag this in case there were any areas where paring could happen. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig shows no concern.
Spot-check based on this revision

5 - Looks good
10c - Looks good
16d - Looks good

Conclusion

This article is in excellent shape. Will do a spotcheck after this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been written excellently, and is an easy pass. Good work! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.