Talk:Galileo project/GA2

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

Reviewer: Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) 02:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I can review this. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the GA Review I did a couple of months ago. If you take my word for it you can save yourself a lot of work: the article is in an excellent state, I checked everything. The only problem I found was with criterion 3b: the article has too much detail on several points. The nominator disagreed and I failed the article. Tercer (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any concerns from the first GA review that you feel haven't been addressed? Therapyisgood (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the one I mentioned, about excessive detail. Tercer (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was failed rather than simply requesting a second opinion because it was split into two parts. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Going through briefly, the "background" section looks great. Lead is great. Jet Propulsion Laboratory should be abbreviated in the "Background" section. First paragraph of Planning: Initiation is OK. Second paragraph is OK. Third paragraph is OK. It was estimated that the JOP would cost $634 million (equivalent to $1837 million in 2019) I believe there is a reference somewhere to cite with template:inflation. His 1610 discovery of what is now known as the Galilean moons orbiting Jupiter was an important evidence of the Copernican model of the solar system. this sentence is probably not needed. Other than that, the "Initiation" section is OK to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ The sentence is needed to explain why the spacecraft was named after Galileo, as he is not primarily known for the discovery of the Galilean moons. Removed the bit about the Copernican model of the solar system. Added a footnote using the template inflation/fn. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Jet Propulsion Laboratory should be abbreviated in the "Background" section.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The United States Air Force then developed the solid-fueled Interim Upper Stage (IUS), later renamed the Inertial Upper Stage (with the same acronym), for the purpose. [11] space between reference and period.
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This was sufficient for a most satellites. typo. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Initially it was thought that the VEEGA trajectory demanded a November launch, but D'Amario and Byrnes calculated that a mid-course correction between Venus and Earth would permit an October launch as well.[55] taking such a roundabout route meant caps
 * ✅ Capitalised. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Telescopic observations of Venus had revealed that there were certain parts of the infrared spectrum that the greenhouse gases in the Venusian atmosphere did not block, making them transparent on these wavelengths, This permitted period, not comma
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This was so accurate that a scheduled course correction was cancelled, thereby saving 5 kilograms (11 lb) of propellant. second half of sentence can be cut.
 * I think its important. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The then tried swinging LGA-2 typo
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 97 needs an ndash for the page range
 * ✅ Ran a script over the entire article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Therapyisgood (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Jupiter was also found to have only half the amount of helium expected and the data did not support the three-layered cloud structure theory. maybe a half-sentence on what the three-layered cloud structure theory was.
 * ✅ Added a bit. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This was attributed to wiring problems with an accelerometer that determined when to begin the parachute deployment sequence. It then dropped its heat shield, which fell into Jupiter's interior[130][135].[136][137] some weird spacing.
 * ✅ Moved full stop. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Radiation exposure caused a transient bus reset not sure what this means.
 * ✅ I guess they're not thought of much as they used to be. Added a link and brief explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Therapyisgood (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (A "nontargeted" encounter is defined as a secondary flyby up to a distance of 100,000 kilometers (62,000 mi).) period should be outside all parentheses.
 * ✅ Removed parentheses. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have finished my review of the article's prose. I will ask for a second opinion on if its length is appropriate. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Second Opinion
Hi. The article is currently around 150,000 bytes in size, and contains 13,790 words (see link at ). WP:SIZERULE would recommend considering splitting an article of this size. WP:HASTE does recognise that some articles do have to be very large to give a broad enough overview of the subject. The article does stay focussed on the subject. Personally, I think that it would be acceptable to retain all the content on one page. If you do decide to split content into separate articles, then I would recommend moving the "Planning" section into a separate article. I hope that this is helpful! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a note that the link shows that the article contains 84,125 characters of readable prose. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this review finished now? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll respond soon, perhaps in a few days. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll defer to the second opinion and pass. However, if this should go to FA, I will bring up the concerns brought up in the previous GA review. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good reason not to. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)