Wikipedia

Talk:Manned Orbiting Laboratory/GA1

< Talk:Manned Orbiting Laboratory
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Hawkeye7 in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page
GA nomination successful following suggested improvements.

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.

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Scope creep (talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


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

Review

edit
  1. Copyvio check. That's fine. Its a 21% but it is common terms, e.g. names of things. Fine.  Done

Prose

edit

I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment. scope_creepTalk 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • never-flown part. Can that re-clarified with a better description, as you have launched on 3 November 1966 at the bottom. Apart from that, it is really decent. Possibly re-craft it. It could best it is at the moment. I don't know. It sound a wee bit odd, but it might be me. "It was a never flown part"??
    Tweaked the wording to indicate that the OPS 0855 was an uncrewed test flight of Gemini B, and that it was the Titan IIIM rocket that never flew. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It's still not right. It doesn't read correctly as your saying something in the first para, and then saying the reverse in the third para. You will need to clarify it by rewording it slightly.
    Removed text to avoid giving this impression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
That reads much better and flows better along with new layout. I mean it was pretty decent at the beginning, but it is better now.  Done

Background

edit
  • The launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, came as a profound shock to the American public, which had complacently assumed American technical superiority, and sparked a search for initiatives to counter its psychological impact Its a long sentence. Is it possible to take out one American and reorder. Give an ownership, e.g in their technical superiority, and sparked a...
    checkY Reduced the sentence size by removing the second clause, which lost its relevance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
 Done
  • most forms of human space flight I'm left wondering what was left out?
    Dyna-Soar is mentioned later in the paragraph. There was a lot of negotiation about what was meant, as it involved transferring funds to NASA, the demarcation between civil and military uses of space was unclear, and just what NASA wanted to do was undefined. In the end, major transfers included MISS, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, but this took place over a period of several years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • transferred $53.8 million (equivalent to $367 million in 2018) Somebody mentioned inflation template, might be worth using. I don't know what nick its in. Surprising to say the least.
    You're looking at it. This text is generated by the inflation template. Note that for defence and R&D projected, we use the GDP rather than CPI as deflator. The year will automatically go up from 2018 when someone gets around to uploading more data. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Planning

edit
  • "white" experiments What are these? Can it be linked somehow, or clarified?
    checkY Added "i.e. unclassified and publicly acknowledged, as opposed to "black" secret and unacknowledged". As there were 59 of them, I decided not to list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It seems to be a know thing with military. It is black money, black funds, black projects and on and on.  Done

 Done

That's fine.  Done
 Done As long as the reader understands what it is.
That's cool. Seems to be two article with slightly different domain, but almost identical.  Done
 Done
 Done
It has been linked to another sentence. Coolio.  Done
This is the one has been linked. Forget that.  Done

Modules

edit

Laboratory module

edit
  •  Done

Spacecraft

edit

Spacesuits

edit
  • Hamilton Standard Is that the right company? According to the article it a manufacturer of propellers. Parts supplier. Unlike the other three, there is no mention of material design, or suit design.
    Seems to be, but terrible article. No mention of suit design, spacecraft design going on for decades.
    Yes, it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    ":Thats ok. More a comment.  Done

Astronauts

edit

Selection

edit
  •  Done

Training

edit
  •  Done

Facilities

edit

Launch complex

edit
  • segment receipt inspection building and ready building What are these? Kind of make sense, but odd sounding?
    The different components of the spacecraft (segments) arrived from different manufacturers and had to be assembled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I had a look at the second time.  Done

Easter Island

edit

 Done

Rochester

edit

 Done

Test flight

edit

 Done

Soviet responses

edit

 Done

Delays and cost increases

edit

 Done

Cancellation

edit
Better reading.  Done
Thats ok. Close.  Done

Legacy

edit

 Done

Mos

edit

I've had a good look through this. I can't see anything that immediately stands out. I spent some time over the weekend comparing the article to the WP:MOS, on line by line basis and think it is OK. There is nothing glaring. I think is done.  Done

Ref layout

edit

This is fine.  Done

RS Refs

edit

Hi @Hawkeye7: This seems to be bloggish, work of one person? [1] The military documents, memo's and so on are fine.

It's the online Encyclopedia Astronautica. The site has won multiple awards, and Mark Wade is generally considered an expert. He has published articles on space exploration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Coolio.  Done

OR

edit

Not a chance.  Done

Pics

edit
  • The vertical MOL diagram for the configuration image. The colouring, design, resolution and size are pretty poor. The [2] has a breakdown. Would it be worth creating a new image?
Yes, but we cannot use that one, which is copyrighted. It could be omitted from the infobox entirely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if that is for the best. You already have the Integral launch dual compartment laboratory image, which clearly shows the compartmental breakdown and in much better detail, to be honest. You know, combined with that second image, it might not be too bad. The second image more than enough info. Yip, keep it. It is in-focus.  Done
  • The image of General Bernard Adolph Schriever. It quite small image and when it opened its quite blurry. It seems there is three public domain images available. There is one on the main article, at 257k, which is in perfect focus. What is your thoughts?
That's cool. I can see him.  Done

Broadness

edit

I found a couple of extra papers. One paper interesting, Manned Orbiting Laboratory-for War or Peace? at [3]. Another at [4] Both of seem to be outside the archive.

It is comprehensive and heavily sourced.  Done

Focus

edit

I have read six MOL type articles and they are all identical.  Done

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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory/GA1&oldid=968144323"