Talk:Geosynchronous orbit/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Spacepine in topic Comments
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments edit
This is an informative and well-written article that is very close to GA status. I have therefore just one or two comments to make. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- There are some uncited sentences, and a citation needed tag. These need to be provided with citations; in some cases that could be by reusing those in the article already. For example the "Statite proposal" sentence can simply be merged with the following paragraph.
- Space debris: perhaps it's worth adding that debris at GSO altitude is much longer-lived than in LEO. Perhaps also (therefore) it would be useful briefly to say something about GSO debris prevention (e.g. deorbiting GSO satellites, and whether tracking debris and manoeuvring will become more feasible) and whether cleanup at GSO altitude is even possible.
- Made it clear that GSO satellites are not deorbited. Better tracking and cleanup and both very much unsolved problems. There's not much more to say beyond speculation and opinion --Sp
- Properties: please make clear whether the ref applies to all 3 properties; if not, please cite all of them.
- Done --Sp
- Tundra orbit: perhaps it would be worth saying that this is a clear instance of a GSO which is not at all geostationary. Further, the claim that it "spend[s] most of its time over one location" should be explained to be true only to an extent, as its position in the sky actually changes continually. Presumably that means it must be tracked? And that it only provides an intermittent service (for what lengths of time?)...? And that the location will be at high latitude...?
- Clarified that it 'dwells' over an area. Changed heading sizes to make it clear that both Tundra and QZ are elliptical and inclined - so yep, they're tracked. --Sp
- Tundra orbit: A diagram would be useful here, not just to explain the service provided by a Tundra orbit, but to facilitate comparison with the service provided by a geostationary orbit (and thus shedding light on the whole GSO topic). That comparison could be just text, but would be much nicer in a paired diagram, or perhaps a table with a column for each type of orbit.
- Agree that a pic is probably worth it, that'll take a few days. --Sp
- Quasi-Zenith orbit: I take it this is not geosynchronous, but is included as it gives something of the same effect, i.e. a continuous service? That ought to be stated and explained.
- No, it's geosynchronous. Clarified. --Sp
Images edit
- Image caption "Author Arthur C. Clarke" -- why not say "The geosynchronous orbit is sometimes called the Clarke orbit, after author ..., who popularised it."
- Image caption "Syncom 2", please wikilink Syncom.
- Done --Sp
- Image caption "An example of a transition from GTO to GSO." -- please spell out the acronyms for readers who visit the images first.
- Done --Sp
- Images all seem to be correctly licensed.
External links edit
- fils.html is tagged correctly as dead, best remove or replace it.
References edit
- Spot checks all ok.
- You seem usually to use "Doe, John R." but sometimes "John R. Doe". Best choose one (the former, ideally) and standardise on it.
- Done --Sp
- Suggest you authorlink/wikilink in the refs Arthur C. Clarke (ref 3), Los Angeles Times (ref 12), EUMETSAT (ref 26, 31), maybe some others.
- Done --Sp
Summary edit
That's about it from me, I enjoyed the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks, a fascinating article, and glad the suggestions have been of help. I hope you will spare a moment to review one or two articles from the GAN queue sometime! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)