Talk:Type Ib and Ic supernovae/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and I should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Everything looks good with this article, so I'm passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As per Talk:Type II supernova#SNII = core-collapse? I contest the GA status. Both this article and Type II supernova gravely confuses supernovae as defined per observation criteria (type Ia, Ib, Ic, and II) with physical mechanisms, such as core collapse supernova versus "trans-chandrasekhar white dwarf supeernova" (not a term!). This article, as well as the type II supernova article describes type Ib and Ic as well as II as being defined by the core collapse. This is erroneous and misleading in extreme. Type Ia, Ib, Ic, II-L and II-R and so on are defined by light curve and spectrum. Core collapse is a theoretical model, not a defining criterion. The article needs heavy rewriting. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The image is erroneous. Oxygen (O) should be above neon (Ne) and below carbon (C), as oxygen is between neon and carbon in the periodic table. Johnm307 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)