Talk:Beta angle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Spiral5800 (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the wikipedian who originally created this article, after watching a shuttle launch one day and hearing the announcers talk about the 'beta angle'. To my astonishment, "beta angle" wasn't listed on wikipedia! Since I started the article, a number of very intelligent and thoughtful people have visited and added to it, and the article has changed profoundly since I made the initial posting. For a topic as relatively narrow as this one, its hard to imagine expanding it [too] much more from the point it has reached at this point. That said, we haven't reached the featured article status yet by a long shot - though I believe that we certainly have reached the good article criteria. I know my vote doesn't count, so I vote for world peace ;) Spiral5800 (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I see there's a note above that 'an editor' has agreed to review the article, but since there's no sign of any activity on that front in the three weeks or so since that message was left, I'm going to disregard it and carry out a full review. If there's any objection to that approach, just let me know and I'll leave the article alone. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Images: Provisional fail Useful and show the concept. However, while they're tagged as being Spiral5800's own work, they contain an image of the sun, which I'm guessing you didn't take yourself! Whose image is this and do we have the right to modify and re-use it?
 * Stability: Pass No edit wars etc.
 * Neutral: Pass Seems to be no controversy here.
 * Breadth: Pass Seems comprehensive for this use of the term. I recommend that if you want to take the article any further, you find some good quality hardcopy references on astronautics, as there may well be more detail on how it is calculated for example. There are other uses of this term (one in structural mechanics, for example), but as this article is clearly focussed on one meaning, I don't believe this is a problem.
 * Accurate and verifiable: Provisional fail Going by the letter of the GA criteria, there are two places in which you need to provide inline citations, by my reckoning. However, although it is not required for a pass, I recommend that you go through and provide inline citations for the whole thing. Looks like you have sufficent sources to fix this. Also the use of ref 1 in the final para is incorrect - the term "beta cutout" does not occur in that reference.
 * Well-written: Fail: Not sure this is the right section to put this under, but some of your article repeats your sources word for word. The example that I first noticed was the first para of 'Determining a Beta Angle', which is almost identical to the third para of the 'Beta Angle' section of your second reference. There are other individual sentences copied from this source and from the third reference. This is a copyright violation (one could call it theft). This and any other copied material must be fixed by re-writing the article in your own words.
 * Less importantly, but still necessary, the lead gives more detail than the main article. Move the detail into the main article and trim down the lead to be a summary of the whole article.


 * Overall: Fail The other things could be fixed fairly quickly, but I can't pass an article with such significant copyright problems (there may be an issue with the pictures as well as the words). Hope you can fix the problems and get through GA next time. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)