Talk:Soyuz flight VS22/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Style
[edit]- Lead good length for article
- Good use of wikilinks and, where needed (not often), explanatory briefs
- Rocket section well-written.
- Might suggest rephrasing the "Manufactured..." sentence to make certainly clear that it was modified for climate at the Samara centre, but not necessary.
- Similarly for a brief explanation that the payload is satellite comm. tech, in case that isn't clear/for clarity on why it's integrated via a mobile tower for readers who aren't good with tech.
- Payload section good.
- May benefit from a brief explanation of throughput (again, for readers with less tech knowledge), but not completely vital because the idea is clear without it
- Could have '(lag)' next to the mention of latency, but it's in the cite quote and near the top of the latency article, so equally not vital for understanding and info available on the page
- Flight seems good, made minor technical edit (adding "the" before Fregat, so readers don't think the upper stage's given name is Fregat)
- Very nice.
- Pass
Coverage
[edit]- Lead covers main points of article
- Rocket section comprehensive on the rocket used, its specifications, comparisons, and extra details relevant to this event
- Payload section good on the load and on the background (and future) of it
- Nothing appears to be lacking in terms of detail, all expected and a bit more background included
- Pass
Illustration
[edit]- Included suitable image in infobox
- Pass
Neutrality
[edit]- Good
- Pass
Verifiability
[edit]- Good selection of sources
- Everything cited inline
- Pass
Stability
[edit]- Minor edit... scuffle... on 6 September. Seems solid now. Main editor clean up good
- Pass on the basis the main editor keeps watch as exemplified on 6 Sep.
Copyright
[edit]- Fair use image
- Clean check
- Pass
Overall
[edit]
A few ideas for improvement, but nothing stopping this from being GA. Very nice. Kingsif (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Very unusual to see an article be instantaneously passed, but thanks for your review! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: Yeah, some just are GA standard, very nice work I guess Kingsif (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Very unusual to see an article be instantaneously passed, but thanks for your review! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)