Talk:Advanced Gemini/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose good, and complies with MoS.
 * I made a number of minor copy-edits.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well referenced.
 * Is there evidence to support the use of the Encyclopedia Astronautica as a WP:RS? It looks like a personal web-site to me., will take that in good faith.
 * Ref #3, #13 are actually hosted at Encyclopedia Astronautica, not NASA. Is there evidence that these are actually NASA documents?
 * Ref #20, #24 are hosted at a NASA site, so the references should say so.
 * Does Mark Wade have proven expertise in this field? As most of the references are to his web site (Encyclopedia Astronautica), we need something to support his expertise., as per above.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Thorough and not unnecessarily detailed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * File:Flex-paresev.jpg is tagged as missing essential source information.
 * All other images OK.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On Hold for seven days for above issues to be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * THanks for addressing those concerns. i am now happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark Wade has been cited by a number of other reliable sources, including NASA and the Discovery Channel. I don't think he has any formal qualifications in the field, but he has been published by reliable sources as well. According to a short autobiographical piece which used to appear on his site, he has had articles published in "International Defence Review, Fliegerrevue, Spaceflight, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Modern Astronomer and the HBO 'From the Earth to the Moon' web site [ sic ] ". He used to have a page on the site listing comments made by experts in the field, however this no longer exists. A copy can be found in the Internet Archive. The documents hosted on that site do exist elsewhere, and have been cited in other NASA documents, however as far as I know the copies on Astronautix are the only ones on the internet. I think that the site's reliability has already been established, so the documents can be assumed to be unedited. I will have a look for a source for the image that you have raised concerns about, however if I cannot find one then I have found a different image which could replace it. With regards to the sources which you claim have incorrect publisher data, shouldn't the original publisher be considered more important than the website it was found on, for the purpose of displaying it. -- G W … 08:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good to say something like "NASA document, archived at Astronautix", as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that I had got the work and publisher fields of the references mixed up, so I have corrected that. I have mentioned the hosting of the documents in the references, and I have uploaded a new image to replace the one whose copyright status could not be confirmed. -- G W … 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark Wade has been cited by a number of other reliable sources, including NASA and the Discovery Channel. I don't think he has any formal qualifications in the field, but he has been published by reliable sources as well. According to a short autobiographical piece which used to appear on his site, he has had articles published in "International Defence Review, Fliegerrevue, Spaceflight, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Modern Astronomer and the HBO 'From the Earth to the Moon' web site [ sic ] ". He used to have a page on the site listing comments made by experts in the field, however this no longer exists. A copy can be found in the Internet Archive. The documents hosted on that site do exist elsewhere, and have been cited in other NASA documents, however as far as I know the copies on Astronautix are the only ones on the internet. I think that the site's reliability has already been established, so the documents can be assumed to be unedited. I will have a look for a source for the image that you have raised concerns about, however if I cannot find one then I have found a different image which could replace it. With regards to the sources which you claim have incorrect publisher data, shouldn't the original publisher be considered more important than the website it was found on, for the purpose of displaying it. -- G W … 08:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good to say something like "NASA document, archived at Astronautix", as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that I had got the work and publisher fields of the references mixed up, so I have corrected that. I have mentioned the hosting of the documents in the references, and I have uploaded a new image to replace the one whose copyright status could not be confirmed. -- G W … 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that I had got the work and publisher fields of the references mixed up, so I have corrected that. I have mentioned the hosting of the documents in the references, and I have uploaded a new image to replace the one whose copyright status could not be confirmed. -- G W … 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for reviewing this article. -- G W … 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)