Talk:SOLRAD 3/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 04:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

• Focus: the article spends a lot of prose (in my opinion, too much) delving into the specifics of the GRAB mission
• Broadness: can you add more about the importance of the mission?

For now, this review is on hold --DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for coming on board! On hold is probably a good place for this article for the moment pending the completion of my FA for SOLRAD 1. I'll be updating this article with lessons learned.

To address your first point, which part do you feel focuses too much on the GRAB mission? (funnily enough, on my SOLRAD 1 review, one of the reviewers insist I put MORE about GRAB in there, a suggestion I am resisting.

I'm not sure what more to say about the importance of the mission beyond what's in the lede -- SOLRAD 3 furthered our store of solar observation data, but more critically, the GRAB component returned so much useful data (once Kennedy took the brakes off the program) that new analysis techniques were developed to process it. Do you have suggestions?

Thank you again! :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: My concern is, if GRAB is the important part of the mission, given the focus on GRAB (I'd say ~1/4 of the article) it may make sense to either split that off or rename the article. There are separate results sections for each, the background has lots about GRAB, and its a short article overall. I hope this explains my concerns. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a thorny question. The spacecraft was developed with the GRAB mission in mind first, but for decades, only the civilian cover was known and written about. Thus, the two have taken on roughly equal importance. Nevertheless, SOLRAD 3/GRAB 2 is most commonly known by the civilian designation. Also, an argument for keeping things as is is that both SOLRAD 1 and SOLRAD 2 are Good Articles with the same format (and, in fact, I've designed the format to be modular for easy updating of the five satellite series).

I do hear and understand your concerns, and I thank you for them. The format I've decided on over the last three months of building this series is a long-considered one, the best avenue I've come up with to address just those concerns. --Neopeius (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Then I don't think this scope is appropriate - if the focus is split evenly, so should the title. Then again, I could be wrong. Given that this is the only issue I have, maybe we should both think about it for a day or two? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: The common name is the common name. :) Also, titling it a GRAB mission is problematic as there are five in the series, but only two got GRAB names -- another point in favor of keeping things under the SOLRAD heading. I've been consistent with calling the satellite SOLRAD 3/GRAB 2 in the article to avoid confusion (readers kept thinking SOLRAD 3 and GRAB 2 were separate spacecraft). But I'm happy to let things sit for a while; I have to update the article anyway. Perhaps you may come up with an elegant solution. Cheers!  :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: rereading the article, I understand your points. I don't have an elegant solution, and since the only issues I had with the focus were based on the GRAB mission, this article passes its GA nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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.