Talk:Hale's law

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Hale's law has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 26, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Hale's law appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in accordance with Hale's law, sunspot groups have magnetic fields that align in opposite directions on opposite sides of the Sun's equator?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hale's law.

Wikipedia

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hale's law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding 2b: I have added additional details to citation #2 (HAO) diff. For citation #14 (Cameron), the Oxford Research Encyclopedia is only digital to my knowledge, so there are no page numbers to reference. Furthermore, this particular entry was free prior to January 30th of this year but now requires a subscription. I have removed "doi-access=free" from the citation template diff. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, all sounds good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and all others who may have worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall, well-written - made a few tweaks, but no major changes. Pass on prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No uncited passages. Well-referenced. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All reliable sources, a couple are quite old but not really an issue. Cite #2 (HAO) has two authors and a date listed at the bottom of the page, they should be added along with any other relevant information and an archive link, if possible. #14 (Cameron), the page numbers for the chapter would be great to add if available. Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All appears to be pulled properly from reliable sources, no synthesis or uncited passages. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, but it can't check most sources - hold for manual spot check. Pass - spot check of 5 sources (thanks, Wikipedia Library!) revealed no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything of significance to add. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Provisional pass, will check again on prose.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well illustrated with high-quality images. Captions are fine, any tweaks can be done on prose review.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that sunspot groups in accordance with Hale's law have magnetic fields that align in opposite directions on opposite sides of the Sun's equator? Source: "Hale's law states that bipolar [active regions] that are aligned roughly in the east-west direction have opposite leading magnetic polarities on opposite hemispheres (leading in the sense of solar rotation)." - van Driel-Gesztelyi and Green (2015). "Evolution of Active Regions". Living Reviews in Solar Physics
- Reviewed:
- Comment: Hale's law pertains to solar active regions, the visual manifestation of which are sunspot groups. Since the term sunspot group is less ambiguous, I think it works better in this context.

Improved to Good Article status by CoronalMassAffection (talk). Self-nominated at 10:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hale's law; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

article was recently promoted to GA, is long enough and within policy. Hook is short enough and interesting. QPQ not needed since this is their first nom. CoronalMassAffection, to provide context, I think it would be helpful to link sunspot and magnetic field in the hook. Are you ok with that? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Thanks for taking a look at this. I am okay with that. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 ^talk_contribs 00:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]