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.
I note that there was a
previous GA review undertaken by
Tercer, which did not conclude with the article passing. Since then, it looks as if substantial changes have been made. @
Hawkeye7: Can you please confirm that the article is ready to review.
simongraham (
talk) 04:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I confirm that the article is ready for review. As a result of the previous review, the article was split in two, and then the separate article on the probe was merged with this one. That was back in February. The article has been very stable since then. However, the comments on the previous review all refer to the other half of the article.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 04:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Review
The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 93.7% of authorship is one user, Tercer, but this seems to be the merge mentioned above. It is currently ranked a C class article.
The six good article criteria:
It is reasonable well written
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
From what I can see, this article meets the criteria to be a
Good Article. I feel it covers a topic that is of interest in a way that balances accessibility and depth. The sources seem excellent and the illustrations bring the article to life and are licensed appropriately. Congratulations on another Good Article,
Hawkeye7. --
simongraham (
talk) 13:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass/Fail: Pass
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.