Talk:Juno (spacecraft)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment
No issues here. Next, on to Image review.
 * 1) Upon my inspection, article edit history is stable going back over one month.
 * 2) Same with article's talk page.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review
There are a lot of images used in the article. All hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Upon my inspection of all of their image pages, only two minor issues to please address:

Please address above, and then comment, below, when done with that.
 * File:Juno lego.jpg = please format with commons:Template:Information and fill out all fields in template.
 * File:Galileo plaque.jpg = please format with commons:Template:Information and fill out all fields in template.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Done! Huritisho 06:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks much better. Just a note to say that I did review and inspect all image pages. Image review passes here. Next, on to rest of review. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Note on GA Nominator
Note: has been confirmed and blocked as a sock of, per investigation Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark. I'd no idea that process was going on, and it's unfortunate, but relevant to note here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 23, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) Copyvio Detector = https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Juno+%28spacecraft%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 = shows a couple problems that could be addressed by trimming quotes down or paraphrasing to get all values below 30 percent confidence.
 * 2) Per WP:LEAD, lede section is a bit short, especially last paragraph of two-sentence-long-paragraph. Suggest lede size of three paragraphs at least, with 4-5 sentences each, or 4 paragraphs with 4 sentences each.
 * 2. Verifiable?:


 * 1) Checklinks tool -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Juno_%28spacecraft%29 -- shows several links problems. Problem = defined as any value other than "200" or "0", or "200" with a comment next to it is also bad. These can be fixed by archiving with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using fields archiveurl and archivedate with WP:CIT templates.
 * 2) In August 2016, the spacecraft will perform an orbit insertion burn to slow the spacecraft enough to allow capture into a 14-day polar orbit. = unsourced sentence.
 * 3) The vehicle coasted for approximately 30 minutes, and then the Centaur was re-ignited for a second firing of 9 minutes, putting the spacecraft on an Earth escape trajectory. = unsourced sentence.
 * 4)  Each orbit takes 14 days and the spacecraft is expected to complete 37 orbits until the end of the mission. = unsourced sentence.
 * 5) In comparative terms, Juno will receive much lower levels of radiation than the Galileo orbiter. = unsourced sentence.
 * 6) Scientific instruments best to have cites after each entry in the "Description" box.
 * 7) as well as advances made in both solar-cell technology and efficiency over the past several decades, makes it economically preferable to use solar panels of practical size to provide power at a distance of 5 AU from the Sun. = unsourced sentence.
 * 8) The command and data processing of the Juno spacecraft includes a flight computer capable of providing ~50 Mbit/s of instrument throughput. Gravity science subsystems use the X-band and Ka-band doppler tracking and autoranging. = unsourced sentence.
 * 9) Several broken cites.
 * 10) Not sure why some cites have redlink to page Juno (sonde spatiale).
 * 11) Recommend standardizing all citations with WP:CIT templates.
 * 12) Strongly suggest moving to Notes/References sect like at The General in His Labyrinth.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Missing: Article is missing a Commentary or Analysis section, with secondary'' sources describing the impact or potential impact this could have on the scientific community and wider society as a whole.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone and matter-of-fact presentation, no issues here.
 * 5. Stable?: See above, no issues here.
 * 6. Images?: See above, no issues here.

has been confirmed and blocked as a sock of, per investigation Sockpuppet investigations/Tetra quark. I'd no idea that process was going on, and it's unfortunate, but relevant to note here. Hopefully other editors will find above notes helpful, in the future.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)