Talk:GOES-16/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Intro
Background
Spacecraft design
Instruments
Launch and mission profile Unique Payload Services and data processing
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
Any way we can source to less primary sources, such as the Boeing and ULA citations? | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Citations 22 and 25 are to the same place but have different information.
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
32% copyvio via Earwig, just common words, no issues What information is taken from the sources in the attribution section? | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
Should the 'GOES-R Proving Ground' be in this article, or a separate article on the GOES-R series of satellites?
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
Some good, real images of the satellite located here. Recommend inclusion in the article. Here is a great image of EXIS. Recommend you do a deeper dive for media on this topic. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
- Images resourced and credits changed where needed. No higher resolution version of NOAA WCDAS2.png exists, and I have gone ahead and endorsed a transfer of that image to Commons. In the attribution section, part of the descriptions of Level 1a, 1b, and 2 data found in [note 3] are taken from Data Processing Levels. The description of GOES-16's functions, namely "...cloud formation, atmospheric motion, convection, land surface temperature, ocean dynamics, flow of water, fire, smoke, volcanic ash plumes, aerosols and air quality, and vegetative health" are taken from Instruments: Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI). --TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Made changes related to comments made on July 22. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @TheAustinMan and Kees08:. How are we going with the review? It has been open for over three months now. AIRcorn (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Right, back at it. Kees08 (Talk) 23:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just made additional edits related to additional comments made since my last edits on the article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TheAustinMan: I think that's all the comments, besides any follow ups I have. I will go through and work on crossing off what you have already completed so the remaining items are more clear. Kees08 (Talk) 05:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just made additional edits related to additional comments made since my last edits on the article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I will pass this now. Sorry for the long time reviewing. I would recommend using some of the images in the link I posted above, there are higher quality images than the ones in this article. Kees08 (Talk) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)