# Talk:Explorer S-1 (satellite)

I'd like to state my preference for any potential GA reviewer for this article to use {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, or any colour or formatting templates extensively when jotting down their points in the review. (see Talk:Planetary Missions Program Office/GA1 for reference) This way, my replies to those points, and replies to my replies, can be clearly distinguished between the main point and other main points of the review. I would also like to request that each point be numbered from start to finish in order, with the numbering scheme continuing contiguously through all the sections of the review. This way, I can cite in my edit summaries, in the revision history of the article, which edits pertain to which points of the review. Thanks for your understanding! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:S-1 (satellite)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

The article is short, but meets GA standard. I made some minor changes [1]; revert if you disagree.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm amazed that the article has practically immediately passed the GA review! I was expecting a roasting of corrections by the reviewer as in GA Reviews past, but this gives me a lot more confidence in writing articles in the future! Thanks for the review, Hawkeye! I have no objections to your corrections, and am pleased that you felt that the article was worthy of a GA promotion out the gate! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the discriminator of Explorer S-1 as a satellite in the page title?  When searched on a search engine, no non-satellite related content will appear (the engine will sometimes mistake "Explorer S-1" for Explorer 1, but this is not relevant).  There is no disambiguation between Explorer S-1 and other non-satellite topics named "Explorer S-1" or other similar names.  If there is no apparent reason, could the page be renamed to simply being "Explorer S-1"? CommScanDetected (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)