This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Soyuz flight VS22 article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Good use of wikilinks and, where needed (not often), explanatory briefs
Rocket section well-written.
Might suggest rephrasing the "Manufactured..." sentence to make certainly clear that it was modified for climate at the Samara centre, but not necessary.
Similarly for a brief explanation that the payload is satellite comm. tech, in case that isn't clear/for clarity on why it's integrated via a mobile tower for readers who aren't good with tech.
Payload section good.
May benefit from a brief explanation of throughput (again, for readers with less tech knowledge), but not completely vital because the idea is clear without it
Could have '(lag)' next to the mention of latency, but it's in the cite quote and near the top of the latency article, so equally not vital for understanding and info available on the page
Flight seems good, made minor technical edit (adding "the" before Fregat, so readers don't think the upper stage's given name is Fregat)
Very nice.
Pass
Coverage
Lead covers main points of article
Rocket section comprehensive on the rocket used, its specifications, comparisons, and extra details relevant to this event
Payload section good on the load and on the background (and future) of it
Nothing appears to be lacking in terms of detail, all expected and a bit more background included
Pass
Illustration
Included suitable image in infobox
Pass
Neutrality
Good
Pass
Verifiability
Good selection of sources
Everything cited inline
Pass
Stability
Minor edit... scuffle... on 6 September. Seems solid now. Main editor clean up good
Pass on the basis the main editor keeps watch as exemplified on 6 Sep.