Talk:Gerard K. O'Neill/GA1

GA Review

I'm taking over. Reyk _YO! 07:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I am passing this article as a GA. Here's why:

1) (a) The prose is lucid, gramatically correct and well-written. (b) I can see no obvious manual of style problems.

2) (a & b) The article is magnificently well-sourced. I can find not one instance where a possibly contentious statement hasn't got a source, or where the source doesn't back up the statement. Oodles of in-line citations as well.

(c) Neither can I find any original research or synthesis.

3) Definitely broad enough in its coverge of the subject. It's a lengthy article, but I didn't get bored from too many details when reading it, so I think the coverage is about right.

4) No problems with neutrality. This is not a hagiography or a smear page. The overall impression I get of Gerard O'Neill from reading it is mostly positive, but this is because the facts speak for themselves. I think the positives and criticisms documented in the article are stated neutrally and fairly. No worries here.

5) No evidence of edit warring or vandalism. Just a lot of improvements.

6) Pictures are generally fine. There's not too few or too many, and they illuminate the man and his work. Can't really ask for more than that. The only suggestion I'd make is to enlarge one or two of them slightly; they've got fine details that are hard to see.

Well done. This is a fine article and deserves its GA rating. Stone's suggestions have made it even better, but I think I'd have passed it anyway. Reyk _YO! 01:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stone

• The first paragraph of the introduction is a short of the introduction and most of the info given there is comming up a second time in the two following paragraphs.

  I have attempted to use summary style in this article. The first paragraph places the subject of the article in context, as is recommended by WP:BETTER. The remaining two paragraphs summarize the article. There is some repetition where necessary to allow the prose to flow smoothly. Is there something specific about the introduction that needs to be improved? Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  No it is OK for me.--Stone (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• For me a pioneer does something first, but he introduced new ideas without going into space himself.

  Changed to "space activist". Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• He was an only child and his junior by 21 years sound strange, but might be a standing expression I do not know.

  Rewrote to be more clear. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is the publication list necesarry? Most of them can be used as references for exaple his Storage-Ring Synchrotron paper from 1956 is mentioned in the text, but has no inline citation.

  I have attempted to include a bibliography as complete as possible, as recommended by the Manual of Style and Mike Peel's review. If the list grows too long, I'll break it out into another article and keep the most interesting ones in "Selected papers". Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The conferences attracted many who later became influential space activists. A name or two with citation would improve the sentence.

  I added names and a citation to the "Space colonization" section summary. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• why is the libration points not called Lagrangian points?

  Changed to Lagrange points. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• much more quickly quicker?

  Rewritten to eliminate "quickly". Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• first mass driver prototype was O'Neil the inventor of the mass driver?

  He was. I added some more detail to the "Private funding" section to explain his involvement. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The overall text sounds very positive, but upto now no space colonisation programm was started, due to several severe probles within the concept. O'Neil was very positive that technical solutions for all problems could be found, whereas some people think that the creation of a sustainable biosphere might be a very complex problem. His misconception that launch costs would be low with the shuttle also make him look over optimistic.--Stone (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  "Over-optimistic" is probably a good characterization of him. I have a few notes about the technical challenges involved with creating a sustainable biosphere, but I didn't want to get too bogged down in the technical details in what is supposed to be a biography. I'll do some more research and see what I can come up with. Thank you very much for your feedback. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  No problem! But I liked the article.--Stone (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Another GA! --Stone (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)