Talk:CryoSat-2/GA1

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

Reviewer: Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GAN on hold
I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it (if necessary). If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached. Altogether, this article was informative on the topic and is well-sourced. Most of the above issues shouldn't be too difficult to address, but if you have any questions on them, please let me know. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be allowed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Construction of the original spacecraft was completed in August 2004, and following testing the spacecraft was shipped to the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in August 2005; arriving on 1 September." The use of the semicolon doesn't appear correct here, perhaps just break it up as "Construction of the original spacecraft was completed in August 2004. Following testing, the spacecraft was shipped to the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in August 2005 and arrived on 1 September."
 * ✅ -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "It reentered over the Arctic Ocean, North of Greenland." Was the first CyroSat destroyed, sunk, re-salvaged, etc.?
 * ✅ It probably disintegrated during reentry, however its exact fate is unknown. I have changed it to "was lost". -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "...to determine how factors such as snow could affect its readings." When stating "factors", it would be beneficial to list more than one factor (snow). For example, "how factors such as snow and sea-ice thickness could affect its readings"
 * ✅ I've reworded the sentence and removed the word "factors". It would have been confusing to list the ice thickness as affecting its readings in the same way since it is an objective not a problem. -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "completed by mid September" -> "completed by mid-September"
 * ✅ -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "The Dnepr rocket assigned to launch CryoSat-2 arrived at the Baikonur Cosmodrome by train on 29 December 2009." Train doesn't need to be linked.
 * ✅ -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Prior to this, a practice countdown was scheduled for 19 February.[35] This was not conducted..." Reword one of the "this" (one of "these" I guess would be the proper terminology...).
 * ✅ -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "CryoSat-2 will be used to study the Earth's polar ice caps..." "will be", it's already launched and working, so this should be reworded. Fix the other occurrences in the section.
 * ✅, I think. -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "A second instrument, Doppler Orbit and Radio Positioning Integration by Satellite," That doesn't need to be bolded.
 * ✅ -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "The spacecraft is currently undergoing on-orbit testing and commissioning, a phase which is expected to last until six months after launch." Normally, I wouldn't recommend the use of "currently", but since the initial six months detail is tacked on, that works. However, make sure this is updated next month when the six months are over.
 * Can't really check anything off here, but as soon as ESA announce that it is complete then I will update it. -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Are there any external links that readers can look to?
 * ❌ I believe that all such sites are already linked elsewhere in the article, either as references or in the website field of the infobox. Per WP:EL, "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." -- G W … 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GA passed
Good job with addressing the above issues. I believe the article meets the GA criteria and have passed the article. I would recommend using WebCite to archive all of the citations to prevent link rot in the future. Keep an eye out for updates on the satellite and ensure the article continues to be maintained to keep its GA status.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. If you are new to reviewing and want to familiarize yourself with the process, study the GA criteria, look at other editors' reviews, and leave any questions you have at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations if you need feedback while performing a review.

Keep up the good work, and I encourage you to continue to bring articles up to good article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. I'll try and archive the links in the near future. -- G W … 08:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)