Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. simongraham (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there was a previous GA review undertaken by Tercer, which did not conclude with the article passing. Since then, it looks as if substantial changes have been made. @Hawkeye7: Can you please confirm that the article is ready to review. simongraham (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that the article is ready for review. As a result of the previous review, the article was split in two, and then the separate article on the probe was merged with this one. That was back in February. The article has been very stable since then. However, the comments on the previous review all refer to the other half of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 93.7% of authorship is one user, Tercer, but this seems to be the merge mentioned above. It is currently ranked a C class article.

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It has a neutral point of view
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Assessment[edit]

From what I can see, this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. I feel it covers a topic that is of interest in a way that balances accessibility and depth. The sources seem excellent and the illustrations bring the article to life and are licensed appropriately. Congratulations on another Good Article, Hawkeye7. -- simongraham (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass/Fail: Pass

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.