Talk:LVM3/GA1

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

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 03:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I will be conducting the review of this article over the coming week. I am looking forward to helping improve this article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * This section should be expanded significantly. It should include some basic parameters of the launch vehicle, a few sentences of history, and an overview of its mission.
 * "The Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mark III[4][12], also referred to as the Launch Vehicle Mark 3, LVM3 or GSLV-III" This should be reduced. The LVM3 part seems redundant, and the abbreviation should just be "GSLV-III" in parenthesis after the name. ✅ by TheDragonFire, UnknownM1 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "It is intended to launch satellites into geostationary orbit" This should be stated as the primary mission of the spacecraft ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * History
 * This should have a more comprehensive history of the GSLV-III; specifically the development process and the testing process. The testing section should be incorporated.
 * "Geo-synchronous / GTO orbits" These are two very different orbits, and need to be explained. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is spelled "geosynchronous." ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * " Even though the vehicle shares the name with ISRO's GSLV this is a completely new vehicle with minimal similarities to earlier ISRO launchers." Instead of using a dependent clause, just state that there are differences between this craft and the similarly-named GSLV. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * " But due to the increase in size and complexity of communication and multipurpose satellites, expansion of ISROs mandate to include interplanetary exploration and an eventual crewed space mission, the need to develop a more powerful launcher became apparent" This sentence is a run-on, and reads awkwardly. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Vehicle description
 * This section should not be broken down into numerous sub-sections, as there is not enough information written to require the delineation of different stages. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "S200 uses a HTPB based propellant" Should say "The S200 booster" or something to that effect. It should be "an HTPB" ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Major components of the booster" This seems excessive; there's nothing cited as to why they are the major components of the rocket. ✅ Removed UnknownM1 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vikas 2 engines are a derivative of the Viking II engines used aboard the European Ariane 1 to 4 launch vehicles. The L110 is the first Indian clustered liquidfueled engines." As this engine is a derivative of a European engine, is it really India's engine? ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is based on the design, but is an Indian design, per its article UnknownM1 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really necessary for this article, so removed. UnknownM1 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Make sure that tense stays consistent in sentences ✅? UnknownM1 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "13.545 metres (44.44 ft) long" Change that to 13.5 meters and 44 feet; there is an excessive number of significant figures relative to other measurements given in the article. ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Development Testing
 * The static test sentences are not complete sentences. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Nearly 600 ballistic and safety parameters were monitored during the test and indicated normal performance" There should be some description of the parameters that were met and considered normal. ✅ Reduced. UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "met the expected performance goals" The goals should be stated ✅ Restated UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "After experimental suborbital flight of LVM3X/CARE mission substantial modifications were made to S200 booster to increase its robustness" Remove experimental, and it should be the suborbital flight. Also, there should be a comma after the flight name, and the name of the rocket should be standardized throughout the article. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "for a full 200 second burn" Remove 'full' as it is implied that the planned burn is the full burn ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC) ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "A successful second test for the full duration, was conducted" Remove 'successful' as that is explained by the full duration line, and remove the comma ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The stage was hot tested for a duration of 50 seconds demonstrating all stage operations" Hot tested needs to be explained, and the stage operations that were demonstrated should be explained. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "A longer duration test for the full in-flight duration of 640 seconds was completed on 17 February 2017" Remove longer duration, as that is understood by the time of 640 seconds being given ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "performance along with all its sub systems like thrust chamber..." Remove 'all' and replace 'like' with a comma and then 'including' ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "All the engine parameters were closely matching with the pre-test prediction." These predictions should either be explained or not mentioned at all. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The 630.5 metric tons (1,390,000 lb) launch vehicle stacking was as follows : a functional S200 solid propulsion stage, a functional L110 liquid propulsion stage, a non-functional dummy stage (in lieu of CE-20 cryogenic propulsion engine) and finally the 3.7-tonne CARE payload stage,to be tested for re-entry in a sub-orbital trajectory." The stacking should be as listed earlier in the article, with only the changes being explained. It should also be given as a sentence instead of a list following a colon. ✅, Changed UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Just over five minutes into the flight, the rocket ejected CARE at an altitude of 126 kilometres (78 mi). CARE then descended, controlled by its on-board motors." This should be reduced to a single sentence. ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "At an altitude of 80 kilometres (50 mi), the capsule began its ballistic re-entry into the atmosphere" This is unecessary, as the capsule is following its re-entry beforehand, and the atmosphere extends beyond 80 km. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "During the test CARE’s heat shield was expected to experience and withstand a temperature of around 1,600 °C (2,910 °F)." As the test has already occured, this should include the data that it did experience. ✅, no exact figure UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "At an altitude of around 15 kilometres (9.3 mi), the module’s apex cover separated and the parachutes were deployed" This should not be an approximate altitude ✅, no exact figure UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Indian government has yet to give the go ahead for a crewed mission." This doesn't belong under the suborbital space test flight section. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "After LVM3-X/CARE campaign few issues with launch vehicle..." This should not be given as a list. Change it to a sentence in the new orbital flight section. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Launch statistics
 * The launch outcomes graph should be removed. As there have only been 2 flights, it doesn't convey information that would be difficult to read on a table.  Additionally, anything describing outcomes shouldn't list future missions as well. ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Future improvement
 * A section should be longer than a single sentence. Additionally, as it is just a proposal, this seems like a tangential detail for something that may occur. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead section should be expanded to properly summarize the article. Additionally, there are several instances of editorializing, such as "Even though", "Major components", "closely", and "just over."  As I am recommending extensive rewriting for the article, I will wait until the article is redone before completing this section. ✅, with the exception of "just over", not editorializing in context. UnknownM1 (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Many of the citations are incomplete. Many of the citations that don't list an author, publisher, or title do have that information listed once the link is followed.  The citations should reflect that information.
 * Standardize the date formats for the "Date Accessed"
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * No concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * There are several cases of uncited material/original research, such as "The boosters separate from the core stage at T+149 seconds." "The booster fired for 130 seconds and generated a peak thrust of about 500 metric tons (1,100,000 lb). Nearly 600 ballistic and safety parameters were monitored during the test and indicated normal performance." and other uncited sentences. ✅, but I think that you missed the context of some of them. They were sentences following from the previous citation in the same paragraph. UnknownM1 (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * "is the third largest solid booster used in any launch vehicle after the Space Shuttle and Ariane 5" Paraphrase this, as it is almost word-for-word with the SpaceFlight 101 article referenced. ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vikas 2 is a version of the Viking engines that were used aboard the European Ariane 1 to 4 launch vehicles" Paraphrase this, as it is almost word-for-word with the SpaceFlight 101 article referenced, changing 'derivative' and 'version' ✅ UnknownM1 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * This article does not include the info about the flight beyond the initial suborbital test.  The information in this article is incomplete without information about its orbital flight.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * This article focuses particularly on the early testing stages, and is too detailed considering the lack of information on its later operational history.
 * I agree with this, as well as A, but unfortunately the vehicle hasn't had enough actual flight history for it operation to be as dense as its development. I can expand and improve the new section on the maiden orbital flight, but one flight can't overtake all that other information. UnknownM1 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No concern.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No concern.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?


 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The infobox picture should be appropriately tagged, as it is copyrighted.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * There should be more photos that illustrate the development process, as well as the rocket when it is not launching.
 * As the rocket has already been built and launched, there shouldn't be an artist rendering of the rocket over an actual picture.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

This article will require extensive writing to include more information about the rocket, as well as formatting and editing fixes. Please do not hesitate to constact me with any questions; I will not be available the following weekend and will keep this article on hold until April 25. I will be sure to check back frequently to review any changes you make to this article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Have you had a chance to look over my suggested edits? User:TheDragonFire and User:UnknownM1 have taken on some of the tasks, but there is still a lot to do before this article is up to Good Article status. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Just noting that some of Hagennos's last edits were to declare a wikibreak until August 1, so they may not be around to complete this nomination. Depending on how long you're happy to let this hang around, we may be able to arrange the needed attention, or you may need to fail the nomination. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

, can you clarify your issue with the tagging on the infobox image? It seems to have the appropriate tag. UnknownM1 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Misinterpretation on my part. I thought that since it was a copyrighted image, it needs to be noted in the caption of the infobox, but that is not the case. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:TheDragonFire and User:UnknownM1, thank you for taking over for editing this article. My apologies for delay in getting back to you. I recently moved and was without internet, so was limited to the occasional public WiFi. I will review the edits you have made and provide feedback when able, but my first pass shows that you have significantly improved the article. Nice job! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Updated GA Review
As the article has been significantly changed, I think it's best/easier to have a new section for the completion of the GA review. I will be putting future comments in this section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * No concern. Nice job updating the lead section.
 * History
 * Development
 * 'Originally ISRO's plans called for two launcher family, the PSLV for LEO and Polar launches and larger GSLV...' I recommend shortening the lead clause, and removing some colloquialisms. Also, there are several acronyms used here (PSLV and LEO) that are not otherwise explained in the article. Also, I recommend removing the intended launch mass got the GSLV, as that is not explained for the PSLV. My recommendation is something like 'ISRO initially planned for a two-launcher system, with the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) for low-earth orbit (LEO) and polar launches, and the larger GSLV for geostationary transfer orbits (GTO).' ✅, by me and others. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Several factors delayed the program, including the long development cycle and the unsuccessful launch GSLV D3 due to failure of the ISRO developed cryogenic upper stage which was a critical component of the launcher." This is a very long sentence, and has some redundancies. The long development cycle is implied by the delay of the program, as the rocket's development was the program itself.  My take is "The failed launch of GSLV D3, due to cryogenic upper stage, delayed the GSLV-III development program." ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * S200 static fire tests
 * This currently is 3 paragraphs, with 2 that are very short. Try combining the static fire tests into a single paragraph, and include an introduction sentence, rather than jump straight to a listing of the tests. ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * L110 static fire tests
 * Combine the one-sentence paragraph about the second test with the first paragraph. ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Originally targeted for a 200 second burn, the test was terminated at 150 seconds" Remove the dependent clause, something along the lines of "The test was originally planned for 200 seconds, but was terminated at 150 seconds..." ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * C25 stage tests
 * "All the engine parameters..." should be "All of the engine parameters..." ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "sub systems" should be "sub-systems" ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redesigns
 * "substantial modifications" Remove 'substantial,' as that is hard to quantify ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The S200 booster's robustness was increased" As robustness is not defined, this is a vague sentence. ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be 13-lobed and 10-lobed, and the reason for the change in grain geometry should be explained ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The composite payload fairing's shape was modified to be Ogive and the nosecone shape on the S200 strap-on boosters were modified from straight to slanted to improve the vehicle's aerodynamics." This reads awkwardly and is a long sentence. My take is "The payload fairing was modified to an Ogive shape, and the S200 booster nosecones were slanted to improve aerodynamic performance." ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Vehicle design
 * There is contradicting info between the infobox and this section. The infobox lists the two S200 boosters, a first stage (L110), and a second stage (C25).  The paragraph refers to the first stage as the S200 boosters, attached to the core stage (meaning the L110), but core stage is not used otherwise.  In the paragraph, the second stage is described as the L110, and the C25 stage is described as the upper stage.  The names for the different stages should be standardized. The burn times listed for the boosters in the paragraph and infobox differ as well.
 * Significant figures/degree of precision should be standardized between values of the same unit and object. Describing a stage as "21.26 metres (69.8 ft) tall and 4 metres (13 ft) diameter" gives the height measurement down to the centimeter while the diameter is only to the meter.
 * "The flex nozzle can be vectored using electro-hydraulic actuators and are used..." Either 'nozzle' should be plural, or it should be 'is used." ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "to allow vehicle pitch, yaw and roll control" This should read "to control vehicle pitch, yaw, and roll" ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "CE-20 is the first cryogenic..." Include a 'The' at the beginning of the sentence. ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable missions
 * X (Suborbital flight test)
 * "and core stage" It should read "and a core stage" ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "that was tested on re-entry from a sub-orbital trajectory." Remove "from a sub-orbital trajectory" as the test was a suborbital test. ✅ TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * D1 (GSAT-19)
 * "The payload was placed into the desired orbit of a 170 km Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO)." This should be shortened to remove redundancies. My take is "The GSAT-19 satellite was successfully placed in a 170 km geostationary transfer orbit (GTO)"  TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The flight also tested upgrades to the design from the data acquired during the sub-orbital test flight." These upgrades should be explained and elaborated.
 * Launch history
 * The sentence should be removed, as that information is already explained in the preceding D1 section, as well as the subsequent table. ✅ by others. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * No concern.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Many of the citations need to be updated to include more than a link to the page. At the minimum, citations from the web need the title and access date, and should include the page's author and date when available.
 * Check that all of the article's referenced are active web pages. I just ran the Internet Archive Bot to check for dead links, so all links are likely active.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * No concern.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * There are no citations in the first paragraph of the 'Development' section
 * Move the SpaceFlightNow citation to the end of the paragraph for the D1 section. ✅ by others.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * earwig No concern
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * No concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No concern.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No concern.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * I would recommend resizing the two non-infobox folder to allow the headings of "Notable missions" and "Launch history" to extend to the left of the page.
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No concern.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I have completed my second review of this article. As I was very delayed in completing this review, I understand that a week may not be enough time to complete edits. I will plan on leaving this review open for 2 weeks, until June 2.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

ATTENTION I am sorry to say that I am going to Fail this review. The nominator has not been active for 3 months and the reviewer seems to be going down the same path. This stalemate review is not going anywhere. Thank you other users for improving, but the nominator did not take the proper action to finish this review. The two weeks is severely up. Please consider renominating in the future so a focused and proper review can take place by someone else. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)