Talk:Mir/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: four found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Because of budget and design constraints, Freedom never progressed past mock-ups and minor component tests and, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Space Race, Freedom was nearly cancelled by the United States House of Representatives. A little confusing. "Freedom never progressed" and "Freedom was nearly cancelled" appear to be contradictory statements. Done

   Otherwise well written.

   I made a few minor copy-edits.[3]

   Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) says: "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, although first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached by in-article links rather than read sequentially. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size." Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Books and .pdf journals need page numbers. Not all have these currently.

   Sources are RS, those that I can access support the facts, I assume good faith for off-line sources, no evidence of OR>

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and comprehensive, without unnecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

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):

   Licensed, with suitable rationales where necessary, captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   THis is nearly there, just a few issues to be addressed. on Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK. I think this is an interesting an excellent article from which I learnt a lot. I feel that it has the makings of a featured article. Problems that may arise there include the page numbers for every cite of the books. They are quite picky there. If you wish to take it on, then perhaps get a peer review making it clear that you are aiming for FA status. Good luck and congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving the article a good looking over and the copyediting; it's much appreciated. :-) I've sorted the flags, and, I hope, disambiguated the sentence about Freedom. I've also added page numbers to some more sources, the exceptions being the 1989 paper on micrometeoroid damage to solar arrays, as the citation is essentially the entire paper, and the books, which are used so many times I'd pretty much be giving page ranges as the complete book. Hope that sorts things out, and thanks again! Colds7ream (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)