Talk:Skylon (spacecraft)/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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

Checking against GA criteria

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)