Talk:PSR B1937+21

Good Article Review 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

passed; elevated to GA status

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PSR B1937+21/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hadger 01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a few problems with the article after reading it. Here they are (I'll just do it section-by-section): Lead Section

• The first sentence where it says "sometimes written as PSR B1937+214" should be changed to "also written as PSR B1937+214", because "sometimes" may confuse the reader in a way by making them ask "when is it written like that?"
• The red links should also probably be removed. Never mind.
• The last sentence in the first paragraph should have a source.
• In the first sentence, the word "only" should be removed, as it is a word to avoid.

Discovery

• In the sentence "Despite targeting very short period pulsars...", "despite" should either be changed or that whole part of the sentence should be removed, because "despite" forces the reader to agree with something else.

I will continue the review soon. The background section was skipped because it is okay. --Hadger 01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review. I mostly addressed the concerns you listed.

• I removed "sometimes written as PSR B1937+214" altogether since that information is in the infobox, and the alternative designation is not used frequently enough to merit mention in the first sentence of the article.
• I actually put the red link for Franco Pacini back, per WP:RED, as he has an article on the Italian wikipedia and certainly meets notability requirements. Miller Goss also definitely meets notability requirements, and I think the other two people mentioned do as well.
  • Oh. I didn't know. Thanks for correcting me! --Hadger 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• I changed the sentence with "Despite targeting very short period pulsars...", so perhaps you can confirm that it is an improvement.

The rest were straightforward fixes. James McBride (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is more of the review:

Characteristics
Pulses (subsection)

• The word "extremely" is sort of an opinion and should be removed.

•  Done

A planetary companion?

• The section itself should be renamed, as it sort of gives the reader suspense, which is unencyclopedic.

•  Done

• The table thing should be made into a section, and since the eccentricity is unknown, it should be removed completely. See my comment.

• I am not sure what you mean here about making the table in to a section. All of the information in the table exists in prose in that section as well, and the table is just summarizing the values listed in an easy to read format.
  • Sorry! That was a mistake! I also see that it's impossible to remove the eccentricity. --Hadger 23:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Significance

• The first word in this section ("up") should be removed. It just doesn't really fit in.

•  Done

That's pretty much all of the problems I noticed about the article. When you complete something, please put *{{done}} right under my comment about it so I know it's done (and remember to sign the comment, of course, although I already know about doing that).--Hadger 00:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I took care of most, though I had a question about one. James McBride (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I answered it. --Hadger 23:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Now for the good article checklist:

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Now that this article has been fixed, it's pretty much an okay article now. You fixed the article very quickly! --Hadger 23:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Good job fixing the errors! That was actually pretty quick!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   You fixed the only problem I found with the sources. Good job!

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think I found any problems with the article not covering major aspects or getting off topic. Good job!

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I only found some things that could be considered opinions, but you fixed them! Good job!

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There weren't any edit wars in the edit history. There weren't any other conflicts that would harm the article, either! Good job!

6. 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):

   I only saw two images, but two is enough, especially on an article about something that would probably be somewhat copyright if a lot of images were used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations! This article passed as a Good Article. --Hadger 23:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"same order of the stability of the best atomic clocks"

Since this was valid, atomic clocks improved by four orders of magnitude. --Rainald62 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)