Talk:Skylon (spacecraft)/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Once operative, Skylon could potentially lower satellite costs from the current £15,000/kg to £650/kg, according to the UK parliament. This is not strictly speaking true, should read "according to evidence supplied to the UK parliament by Reaction Engines Limited" I have changed this.
    Otherwise well written, according sufficiently with the MoS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    References check out, sources are RS, no evidence of OR.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Sufficient detail, without unnecessary trivia.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Tagged , captioned and licensed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I am happy that this meets the the good article criteria, so I am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply