Talk:Mazaalai (satellite)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mazaalai (satellite)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 02:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 02:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   • The lead is a bit confusing. Better to describe the satellite itself and the date it was launched, then after all of that is done, talk about MongolSat-1 at the end of the lead. That way, the context of the article is well established.
     • I moved it to the main article, I don't think the intro is really the right spot for it (especially if it is not mentioned in the article). I added some more info to the intro to fill in the void. Kees08 (Talk)
   • The design section needs to be merged into "Background" because it's so short. In fact, I would say you can make it one section, "Background and design."
   • The sentence in the "Operation" section needs a cite.
   • How much did it cost to build the satellite?
   • What is the satellite's payload? What kind of equipment is on it? The background of the design and payload on the satellite need to be elaborated on.
   • Who built it? What was the timeline on when construction began and when it was completed?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   • Details in the infobox not cited in the article's prose need a cite.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   • Any reaction or response from the government? This seems like a substantial milestone.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problem there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problem there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   • Just one image. Can it be moved to the infobox?

7. Other:

   Dab links, dup links, external links and copyvio show no problems.

   Source spotcheck Ref 5 and Ref 9 are appropriately cited to what's in the article. Ref 8 is returning a blank web page--is there a new link you can use?

   Added an archived link Kees08 (Talk)

On Hold There are a few things the article needs before it's ready for GA. On hold pending improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ed!: Would you be able to take another pass at this? I made some significant changes, aimed at addressing your comments above. Kees08 (Talk) 05:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Spotted something I forgot -- any chance you can cite the mission duration, and include it in the body of the text as well as the infobox? —Ed!^(talk) 03:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huntster: Do you have a source for this? I have not seen it in any source yet and just looked for it for like an hour. Suppose we should remove it if neither of us do and hope someone finds one for it when it is gone. Kees08 (Talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Kees08, I know without question that I have seen the figure before, but I can't for the life of me find it now. Chuck it out. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. Passing this one for GA now, good work! Take care to keep it updated, though, because of its length it could quickly fall into GAR if it's not timely. —Ed!^(talk) 16:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Deorbited?

Deorbited, perhaps said it fell back to earth?

Also, is "deorbited" an English word?