# Talk:Taurus–Littrow

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 04:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Will review this article pretty soon.

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I have failed the article in this category as the dating in the references differ, there are two styles used.. Also, check that there is a   between units and measurements as I see a few units and measurements without one. Also the values in the article must be converted eg. metric to imperial or vice versa. If possible use the convert template, {{convert|8|km|mi}}. You can also ad abbr=on to abbreviate the units, note that units should be spelled out the first time they are used. Also I fixed some prose issues. Issues fixed, pass.
Unit conversions -  Done
Fix ref retrieval dates -  Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The citations are reliable and each cite provided at the end of the paragraph supports everything withing that paragraph.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Covers everything that can be covered about a lunar valley and is focused on the valley and important people who were once there (Apollo 17).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Congrats, passed.

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Apollo 17 Moon Panorama.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 16, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that each of the relatively insignificant craters in this region is the subject of its own article. However, these are probably never going to grow beyond a stub. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge them into a table within this article? Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)