Talk:Nicholas U. Mayall/GA1

GA Review

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

Sorry I didn't get to the requested peer review fast enough. Besides the small number of sources, I think this is within shooting distance though, and that you can make enough fixes and this can stay on the GA nominations for at least a week or so while you do so. It does need a few things:
1. That's awfully few sources for a good article. More sources help to reach NPOV and improve accuracy if used properly. Try getting something through interlibrary loan if you can.
  I have Stone, Irving (1970). There was light: Autobiography of a university: Berkeley, 1868-1968. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. pp. 107–20. on order from the library and have begun to cite it using Google snippets. WilliamKF (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The lead section is too short per WP:LEAD it should be 2-3 paragraphs that properly summarize the most important information from the rest of the article.
  The lead is now three paragraphs and attempts to follow the guidelines in summarizing the article. WilliamKF (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The 120 inch section gives too much history not related to Mayall, it's hard to even see how he is important enough in the telescope to warrant that being a section in his biography. If indeed he is, the section should be refactored to make that clear and his role in it should be the focus of the section.
  I've added an introductory paragraph, which I hope helps, but I imagine more work is needed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. The first paragraph of the Postwar section refers to "the Crossley", but we don't really know what it is. Presumably it is the Crossley Reflector linked in the next paragraph, but the context should be where the term is first used and where it is re-used prominently in the first use in a section.
  I think I have addressed this, let me know if it still needs looking at. WilliamKF (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Now it specifies what Crossley, but doesn't give any more context. Also the beginning of the next paragraph is redundant with the first and they need some narrative arc to make the section work together cohesively. - Taxman ^Talk 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I've tried to address these points, hopefully it is clear now. WilliamKF (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it is quite good. The sources may be the hangup depending on how much time you have to dedicate to it. - Taxman ^Talk 19:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's there is good, but it's just not enough references to ensure verifiability and NPOV. Generally even B class articles have substantially more references and I don't think it's fair to keep it on hold for longer. Also I had assumed there was some other person named Nicholas Mayall and that's why this article name has the middle initial in it, but when I checked there wasn't. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) generally calls for just first and last, so the article should probably be moved to Nicholas Mayall. - Taxman ^Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for the book from inter-library loan. WilliamKF (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Some people just get uptight if GA noms stay on hold for very long. See what other high quality sources you can find and use the one you have on the way and then see where that gets you. - Taxman ^Talk 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Received inter-library book today and added numerous cites. Is this sufficient, or do I need to track down more? WilliamKF (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]