Talk:PSLV-C42

PSLV-C42 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.
Review: November 24, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from PSLV-C42 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that with the launch of PSLV-C42 the Indian Space Research Organisation has launched a total of 239 foreign satellites for 28 different countries?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PSLV-C42.

Wikipedia

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PSLV-C42/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this one up. Review follows shortly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link crore for the non-Indian readers.
Cheesegrater -> "cheese grater"
Some links need access dates

I have preformed these to speed the process along. Revert changes you disagree with.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Looks good.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Hawkeye7, it is much appreciated. MBlaze Lightning 06:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

Hello!

I am late to the party, but having reviewed the page, I have a suggestion.

It is well-written, as far as it goes, but it also reads like an information dump, which makes it somewhat inaccessible to the casual reader. I suggest writing a "History" or "Background" section explaining why the satellite was developed. I've done something like this on my Solrad 1 page (and also its parent, Solrad).

Keep up the good work!

--Neopeius (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: bringing your attention to these comments if you did not notice them. Neopeius edited awhile back, and is getting back in the swing of things. They saw your request for assessment on WP:Spaceflight from awhile ago and provided some input. Wanted to bring it to your attention in case you missed it! Kees08 (Talk) 03:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'll see what I can do about a background section, but it'd be some time before I start writing one as I've got my hands full, so please bear with me. Thanks.

MBlaze Lightning 06:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]