Talk:EASE/ACCESS/GA2

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I believe, along with another editor of WikiProject Spaceflight, that this article does not meet the good article criteria. I am therefore going to review it against the criteria, in order to determine whether it should retain GA status in its current form, and if not, what modifications would be necessary in order to retain it. Replies to the review should be posted here, it will remain open for at least a week for improvements to be made before the article is delisted.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The grammar used in this article is poor in places, and a thorough copyedit is required. MOS compliance is a major issue. Let's start with the title. "Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures" is rather long, and whilst this is not in itself a problem, it does pose the question of whether it is the common name. I searched for the current title and "EASE/ACCESS spacecraft" using Google, and the latter returned more results by well over an order of magnitude, so the page clearly needs to be moved. Next there is the issue of units. The article switches between metric and imperial in several places. Since it is a scientific article, SI units should have priority in all places. The article also contains both British and American spellings. It was an American project, so I would suggest using American English.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References are sparse, but when present they are reliable. There doesn't seem to be too much OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article stays fairly focussed. Lack of detail is the most severe issue with this article. All sections, particularly the results and conclusion sections contain far too little information. In some areas the lead contains more detailed descriptions than the body - the lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not to present information which is not present elsewhere. The article is completely devoid of background information, and details of the EVAs themselves are virtually non-existent.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The conclusion section has a slight pro-NASA bias
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * One of the most stable articles I have ever seen, there hasn't been a meaningful edit to it in over a year.
 * 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):
 * Images are present, appropriately tagged, and have suitable captions, however I have a few issues with their use. Let's start with the "main image", the first one that a reader sees as they load the page. It looks like somebody has just taken a photo of a book. Maybe there aren't any better images of that part of the experiment, but there are better images of the other part which should probably take precedence. Move the poor quality one down, or better still, try and replace it. You've also got several images aligned, with different sizes. This looks scrappy.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article needs a lot of work to retain GA status.

To reinforce the need for cleanup, I am also going to review this article against WikiProject Spaceflight's B-class criteria:
 * 1) The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. The citations are not just raw URLs ✅
 * 2) The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Some aspects, particularly the background, may still be covered in less detail than would be desirable, however no critical information should be absent. ❌
 * 3) The article has a defined structure. This should consist of a lead section and appropriately divided sections. ✅
 * 4) The article is reasonably well-written. There are no significant errors in spelling or grammar, and no outstanding cleanup issues ❌
 * 5) The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. This should include relevant images if any are available, and an infobox if one exists. ❌
 * 6) The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way although it should not be "dumbed down". Technical terms should be explained or at least linked ✅

Evidently, work is needed-- G W … 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with the GW analysis above. While it was an interesting article to read, if it ever was in fact "GA" status against the Wikipedia quality guides, it is not now. N2e (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given this ten days and there has been no change. I am therefore revoking GA status for this article. Once it has been improved, it may be nominated for GA status once more in the normal manner. -- G W … 22:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)