Jump to content

Talk:Project SAINT/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Section 1;
    • Some context would be required on "National Intelligence Estimate 11-5-57"
 Done
    • GOR-170? What do you mean by GOR?
 Done
    • Mention "DARPA" in full on the first mention, also mention ARPA in full
 Done
    • United States Air Force was over linked
 Done
  • Section 1.1; All good
  • Section 1.2;
    • Expand NORAD
 Done
    • The third phase of the project included several elements. These included: a powerful main engine; suggest rewording this as "The third phase of the project included several elements such as powerful main engine"
 Done
    • Link "surface-to-air missiles"
 Done
    • and four cameras to allow its operator to observe; suggest "and four cameras for observation"
 Done
    • infrared, gravimetric sensors
 Done
    • 12 meters (39 ft), 60 meters (200 ft); abrreviate, use |abbr=on
I am unsure of how to implement this, If you wish for it to be 12 m (39ft) I can do that manually. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
    • Cape Canaveral, is over linked
 Done
    • within range of one? What is this phrase, suggest explaining in general language
 Done
  • Section 1.3;
    • for December of 1962; just "for December 1962"
 Done
    • The plan was originally for four SAINT launches -> It was planned to the launch four satellites
 Done
    • the then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, remove "the"
 Done
  • Lead;
    • bold "SAtellite INTerceptor"
 Done
 Done
  • Suggest adding an infobox. This is out of GA criteria, just a suggestion
Sounds good, would I use a infobox for a military operation, or for a satellite? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest {{Infobox research project}}. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • All images are appropriately licensed
  • External links are good. Suggest archiving them, as a precaution.
I don't have much experience with archiving links. Would I just use the Wayback machine and then cite the URL given by Wayback, or is there another way of doing it? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, do it the same way. Just archive them. Even if they are dead in future, we can use the archives. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done.
 Done.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I believe that is everything. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:30, 11 January 2017 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_SAINT/GA1&oldid=1248599294"