Talk:Voyager 1/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: WDGraham (talk · contribs) 12:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I've edited this article a few times in the past but I haven't made any major contributions so I believe that leaves me uninvolved enough to conduct a review. --W. D. Graham 12:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The "Exit from the heliosphere" section contains an awful lot of paragraphs starting "On [date]". It's fairly disjointed - what I'm assuming has happened is people have added a new paragraph for each development, and nobody has gone through and integrated it into continuous prose. This should happen before it is promoted to GA. Better, but the article could use a good copyedit
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is work needed here, I'll post a detailed assessment of it later.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks fairly well referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are a few areas which list all their references at the end of a section rather than inline - the mission profile section is a good example. These refs should be inline with the relevant content, not a separate line at the end of the section. Memory Alpha is not a reliable source (although as I addressed in 3b, the information it supports is in no way relevant to the article and it won't be pass as a GA while that content is present anyway. Some of the NASA pages are missing publisher information. I also noticed one bare url in the reference list, please address these.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No significant problems.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is a big problem, and why I nearly failed it immediately. The article provides a really good outline of the mission but it has absolutely no depth. It doesn't go into detail about the launch, about the spacecraft itself and its systems, other than the table outlining its various instruments. There are a total of five (short) paragraphs on the planetary encounters. The only section which expands on its topic beyond the basic details is the one about its exit from the Solar system, which seems to be more recentism than anything else. Most of the other sections need significant expansion. This still needs a lot of work - the launch section is only one paragraph - what about processing, technical details on the rocket, etc - more detail on the spacecraft and the planetary encounters can also be added - science results, discoveries, etc.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Reasonably well done, my only issue is the popular culture section. The Defiance example seems fairly obscure (see WP:IPCEXAMPLES), the Space 1999 example is a fictional spacecraft with the same name, but not the subject of this article, and the Star Trek example is a fictional Voyager 6 which has absolutely nothing to do with this page - the latter might justify a mention on the main Voyager program article but none warrant inclusion on this page. Addressed, just keep an eye out to make sure an inexperienced editor doesn't put it back.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks fairly good, perhaps the word "famous" should be removed from the sentence about the Pale Blue Dot image, but apart from that I didn't see any problems. "This was a major milestone in the Voyager interstellar program." is a bit subjective.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No major issues
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Tour-v1-2.svg is missing source information, although it could probably be argued that it is ineligible for copyright. File:Valhalla crater on Callisto.jpg is also missing source info - while it is obviously a NASA image that box does need to be checked. File:Voy1 8feb2012.jpg also needs a source. Two down, one to go.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Most of the captions need rewriting. The caption in the infobox is a little long; some of it could probably be moved into the background section to beef it up. Most of the other images have very short captions which don't really help the reader. "Voyager 1 awaiting payload entry into a Titan-Centaur-6 rocket" should be rewritten - "payload entry" doesn't make any sense, and there's no such thing as "a Titan-Centaur-6 rocket" (Titan-Centaur 6 was the flight number of its rocket, but the rocket itself was a Titan IIIE) This has not been addressed at all.
	7. Overall assessment.	There is some work needed, but I'm willing to keep this open for a while if that work is being done. An important topic and lot of potential here and it would be nice to see it reach a GA standard. --W. D. Graham 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)