Talk:Steorn/GA1

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

Opening comments: Reads well as an article, and sufficiently references. Despite what could potentially be a very tricky subject with regards to balance, I feel that the current tone is appropriate, taking into account what everyone acknowledges is the scientific orthodoxy (as it were).

Main review: I feel it slightly unnecessary to transclude the full GA template here, due to the lack of things to say.


 * Firstly, I must say that the two-section break doesn't work for me. I think, perhaps, it would work better in three - a definite past (history), present (the whole furore) and future (what are their plans?). But it's not something I'm going to get uppity about.


 * Article stability: I think we have to allow the article some leeway here, but obviously, I shall remain on the lookout given the high number of non-obvious vandalism to-ing and fro-ing.


 * WP:LEAD - Some of the "future" would be nice in the lead - just a sentence perhaps - to make it clear to the reader whether this is dead and buried or there is still "hope".


 * "Orbo" logo. Ho hum. WP:NFCC anyone? Not entirely convinced it adds anything much to my understanding of the article (unlike the main logo). However, this sort of helps your case, since the logo is so simple it could probably (if you squared the corners perhaps) be ineligible for copyright. Worth looking into as an alternative of the slightly iffy non-free status. I may be able to offer some advice if required.

That's it really, nothing major, and no definite no-nos. I'm happy to pass on the assurance that the above has been given some consideration.

Reviewer: - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeez, you had to raise all the difficult issues, didn't you! :) Joke - you've clearly given this some thought, as shown by the difficult issues you raise, and many thanks for your time. I have just one quick comment about the "future" stuff, which relates to both you thoughts on the article structure and the lead. I agree that saying something about where this is going would be good, but we have no reliable sources, only promises from a company that claims to have broken the laws of physics and are therefore hollow promises. I am therefore wary of putting too much emphasis on what Steorn say they're going to do next, largely from an NPOV and WP:FRINGE perspective.
 * Nevertheless, as I say, I am conflicted because it is an obvious gap in the article. If you wanted to make edits to try to resolve the difficulty, please do and I doubt very much I would reverse any sourced additions, even if only sourced to Steorn press releases. One possible avenue is the bit about releasing information about the technology to prospective developers for a fee, which was at least mentioned in a third-party source.
 * As for the logo. I'd be happy to lose it. I agree that it adds little. GDallimore (Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Thinking about it some more, Wikipedia is in encyclopedia and must be reasonably future-proof, so I've added a note or two about Steorn's own (current) vision for its future plans, and I think we can leave it at that. Otherwise, very happy, and will pass the article.


 * This comes with the customary invitation to review someone else's (potentially) good article, and of course that reminder that no article is ever perfect. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)