Talk:Ecliptic/GA1

The article is satisfactory, with minor quibbles, except for the copyright status of the photo showing planets in the sky, noted below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

   Lead has unduly complex way of saying you can't see Sun move among the stars because it's bright.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   Astronomical Almanac provides 2 definitions but article only recognizes first. "In the constellations" should have a citation because astrologers may take issue with this.

Y Added some text to Ecliptic#Sun.27s_apparent_motion to cover the second definition. YFound a reference for Ophiuchus (which I assume is the potential astrology problem). Tfr000 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

   The file FourPlanetSunset hao annotated.JPG at Commons has copyright issues.

Y I am attempting to get back in touch with the author to clear this up. Tfr000 (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is now fixed; copyright issue solved. 71.181.112.155 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Fails because of the file noted under criterion 6.

   Pass/Fail:

   Passes, all criteria have been met. FourPlanetSunset hao annotated.JPG no longer has copyright issues.

Since the article fails at the moment, but there is a good prospect that the copyright status of the file mentioned above can be clarified, or a substitute image found. I'm placing the article on hold. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]