Talk:Troll Satellite Station

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Arsenikk in topic GA Review
Good articleTroll Satellite Station 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.
Good topic starTroll Satellite Station is part of the Troll (research station) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2012Good article nomineeListed
December 4, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 6, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Norwegian Troll Satellite Station in Antarctica's Queen Maud Land is one of only two ground stations capable of communicating with all low Earth orbit satellites?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Troll Satellite Station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Thanks for the review. Arsenikk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply