# Talk:Alan Hale (astronomer)

If this page passed the DYK review, shouldn't it be upgraded to GA status? RobP (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No, not at all.  The criteria for Wikipedia:Good articles are far more demanding than for a DYK, and the two are meant for different purposes.  DYK is to highlight new work, and GA is to highlight the best.  Both are admirable things to aim for, but different.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. How does one get a review done to see if the article is worthy of a GA or at least A?  Cat B says "The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work."  So how does one determine what additional work is necessary? RobP (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The B rating was issued because it is the highest that I can award without a formal review. The next highest level is GA. To nominate the article for GA assessment, go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and follow the instructions. I don't foresee an problems with it meeting the GA criteria. Reviewers will indicate what additional work is required to bring it up to the required standard. There is a further, higher rating known as Featured Article (FA), which is far more stringent. Nominate it for GA first. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be either removed or heavily redacted because it has no bearing on Alan Hale, as a person. He discovered the comet that these people took to be a sign that they needed to kill themselves. Something that he understood - as comets have a way of making some people think they're harbingers of doom. There is no need to have so much detail about a doomsday cult in an article about Hale - who is a scientist and was neither a member of the cult or connected to the cult. The section mentions Hale in connection to the cult in the last paragraph. This contravenes WP:UNDUE.
He made a comment about their being deaths attributable to the comet, and he was tragically right.  A fact that could be reflected in one sentence not an entire sections. If readers want to know more about what inspired cult members to kill themselves, then they're perfectly able to click the link to the cult's article. It's misleading to have a section entitled Heaven's Gate when the link to Hale is tenuous. He didn't name the group, he just made a general comment that turned out to be correct. It's not needed and distracts from the scientific professional work of this man.  81.132.175.214 (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree and have chopped the excess (details are in the linked article) - leaving his reaction as notable. Vsmith (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I take the point about too much HG material here, but I think too much was deleted. I removed the long quotes from HG members which I used but left the historical background so a reader could appreciate what happened - and Hale's reaction to it - without having to go read the main HG page and then (maybe) come back. RobP (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The photo now on the page is the only one currently in Commons. If you have an appropriate one, please upload it to Commons and let me know! RobP (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rp2006: In the sentence "Hale was raised in Alamogordo where his father retired from the Air Force and worked in civil service.", a comma is needed after "Alamagordo" to set off a nonessential element ("where his father retired from the Air Force and worked in civil service.") See "Commas with Nonessential Elements" and Setting Off Non-restrictive Clauses; there are many similar grammar pages for you to study, if you wish. "Hale was raised in Alamogordo" conveys the main meaning of the sentence; the additional information about his father is just that, additional information. It is an unrestrictive clause. Chris the speller yack 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This one I disagree with. Essential vs. non is a gray area sometimes. In this sentence the second part is NOT non-essential. Hale was raised there BECAUSE his father retired to that location.  In fact, it could be rewritten (a bit unnecessarily complex) as: "Hale was raised in Alamogordo because his father retired from the Air Force and worked in civil service there." RobP (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Wikipedia does not capitalize job titles, no matter how "official" they are, per WP:JOBTITLES. Not even pope, king and chief executive officer are capitalized. Even if they are capitalized in a cited reference, they are not capitalized except in a direct quotation. Chris the speller yack 16:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

OK.  As they say - you learn something new every day! I undid my undo. RobP (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This page was Tweeted by Wikipedia's Twitter account on 11/8/16, resulting in over 13,000 pageviews (slightly more than its DYK posting results).[1] RobP (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This article's DYK appearance garnered enough pageviews, 12,110,  to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This page was Tweeted by Wikipedia's Twitter account on 11/8/16, resulting in over 13,000 pageviews (slightly more than its DYK posting results).[2] RobP (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alan Hale (astronomer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images have appropriate licences
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Comment
Any idea who his PhD supervisor was?  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)