642:
49:
609:
with maybe a graf left behind here. There's enough there, and as a separate article its issues—citing the sections of Indian statute that the charged parties were alleged to have violated as opposed to the named crimes they committed, and its needed citations, among others—would then not be this article's problem.
344:
And for the most part, it was written in a consistent voice (albeit one with a lot of non-native
English influence, like many missing articles and odd word choices, that I had to correct when copyediting). Too often when I have reviewed a large GA (and sometimes even a small one), one can tell it was
337:
And to my great relief, given this length and my experience reviewing other articles of this length, it was coherent. I never felt like I was getting lost. It arranged and presented its content in a manner whereby the transitions felt logical. It did not seem to spend an inordinate amount of space on
608:
The section on the S-band scandal was the one part of the article that felt like it was written by someone else ... the
English was generally cleaner, for one thing. That said ... it seems to me that it should a) be discussed in the history section further up and b) spun off into a separate article
537:
I think they very much do here; it would certainly resolve this puzzling choice to use the non-editable introductory semicolon for some of this sections but the bookended equals signs for others. I should also point out that much of the S-TIC paragraph simply reiterates information already given in
453:
circumstances (I admit I smiled about the engine and rocket being "mated" with each other). But I am still unsure what to replace "indigenous" with. I can say with confidence that in this context it definitely does not mean what the author thinks it mean. "Native", perhaps? Some synonym suggesting
232:
As is usually my practice, I will be printing it out for red-pen review, and then doing a light copy edit so that the article won't be quick-failed on those ground. Hopefully within a week of that edit (which I hope I can get to within a week of this post), I will be back to you with my comments.
412:
I did not address this in my copy edit because I felt this was a content choice that the nominator or another editor should make, not the GA reviewer. But in that department, it also occurs to me that some of the historical detail in the second graf should/could be better left to the body of the
352:
I should also thank the nominator for the edits he made while this article was pending after I had accepted the review. He addressed some of the issues with part of the text (specifically, the quote under "telecommunications" and the entire "Resource management" subsection, which were deservedly
348:
It is also generally well laid-out and illustrated. The images make sense with the text they are next to. There are no galleries, or other sections where people passing by decided to just stick something in that they thought looked cool. No vast desert of whitespace created by a complete lack of
513:
the DOS agencies. Certainly some of them, as the article later shows, work closely with ISRO. But for others on that list, it is their sole mention in this article. I really think this whole section would better off in the DOS article ... or reduced just to a brief discussion of the other DOS
448:
Then there are some remaining languages. I added many of the missing articles (is this a characteristic of Hindi or
Bengali or other Indic languages that I'm not familiar with (but I do speak Russian and that happens there)?) and was able to find the English word the author meant to use in
499:
In "Goals and
Objectives", I really question the need for those two long quotes. They would be better off paraphrased and quoted only relevantly, in shorter bites. If someone really thinks they're inspiring and a good thing to have here, they should go in the appropriate Wikiquote
629:
OK, lastly, it doesn't have to be done but I think it would be nice if someone could find or take a picture of ISRO's headquarters in
Bangalore and put that in the article ... there are plenty of places it could go. All our other space-agency articles have some picture like that.
548:
Are the tables on the launch statistics really necessary? Especially the one-line table of GSLV Mark III launches telling us that all four launches have been successful? Is space exploration the new international sport? Do these tables tell us anything that prose alone
686:
I could take this occasion to ask more seriously for someone to work on this, but ... it has been almost a year and a half since this was nominated, and frankly that would just be needlessly prolonging things that have perhaps been prolonged too long (Is this a
532:
The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text ... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points
541:
As for the list of other facilities, again, some are mentioned later but others are only mentioned there. Is it really necessary to have this list in the article? I am beginning to think that this entire section might be better spun off as a separate
345:
written by three different people at different times. That is too often the result of the expand-and-nominate method of getting to GA. This does not seem to have been the case here, for the most part. At least one person seems to have taken charge.
205:
Okay. I will wait for some other reviewer to review it. Anyway, thanks for your suggestions. It helped me to improve the page considerably. I am hoping to spin off the facilities section into a separate article, once that page is approved.
488:
I would assume "programme", would be preferred, expected from a
Commonwealth country ... except that Australia is a Commonwealth country as well and "program" is TMU the preferred spelling down there, as I learned when developing
654:
be done. I am willing to give you more than the usual week to do it. If you feel you can't do it even in an extended timeframe, I would be OK with failing it so you can fix and renominate at your convenience. Just let me know.
364:
Before I begin, there is the issue of this article's overall length. At 226K it is the longest article I have ever reviewed for GA. It is the longest article by far that we have about a national space agency ... longer than
387:
have been heeded ... there seem to have been many articles spun off already. But I think more could be done, and in my comments below there are many areas where this article could be made shorter without losing anything
674:
OK. I have let this review go now for almost three weeks, during which no one has responded here, and there appears to have been almost no work on the article. In fact, the only result of this whole process is that
432:
tags throughout the article. These need to be cleared up either by citing appropriate sources or removing the uncited claims from the article. Again, pending those changes I will be tagging the article with
485:
and its conventions meant that I was unsure whether "programme" or "program" was correct. The article primarily uses the former with the latter creeping in in two places. It needs to be consistent in this
554:
I assume the acronym "IHSF" means "Indian Human Space Flight" but ... since that's just an assumption, I did not spell it out as such, particularly because that's the only place it appears in the article.
133:
516:
I am also not sure if the table of facilities afterwards is totally necessary ... some of the information is repeated elsewhere in the article, and while some of those facilities certainly
349:
awareness of how to use formatting tools available in WML or, even, general principles of page layout. If I sound harsh on that score, you should see some of the nominations I've reviewed.
564:
Has there been any change in the schedule for launching that crewed mission in the last 15 months? It would be good to research this and update that last sentence under "Crewed
Spacecraft"
471:
Conversely remember that it is not only
Indians who may be reading this, and thus shorthand like "PM Modi" and the many other abbreviations of agencies that went unnamed (although they
129:
114:
460:
and much of the overly formal and bureaucratic phrasing that I trimmed. Perhaps this, too, is characteristic of Indian
English, especially where the writer's first language is
191:
I got your earlier note. Usually it's considered better form for a different reviewer to consider it, though I would certainly be willing to offer that reviewer my thoughts.
106:
614:
Also, what's that text at the bottom of the references section about? It looks like it might have been a formatting error, but I can't figure out what it's supposed to be.
266:
I got a little sidetracked on the way to doing my copy edit, although I'm almost finished with the hardcopy. My goal is to start doing the copyedit later this week.
402:. Even allowing for the existing fourth graf to be combined with the shorter fifth (most of that detail on development of the rocket launcher in the fourth graf is
87:
280:
Alright; I am finally done with the other large article I was working on for, oh, the last two months, pending its GA nomination. I will be starting the copy edit
77:
122:
413:
article. If you'd like me to tighten that intro up later, just ask (I've done this a lot). Till then I will be tagging the article appropriately.
338:
any subjects of dubious relevance. My copy edit wound up taking the article down only by 1K ... that suggests to me that there was a 'little
722:, I have made some of the changes that you have suggested. Will you be able to review this  ? I have raised a nomination for Good article.
490:
54:
475:
linked), as common as they may be in Indian media, need to be written out so non-Indian readers can understand them on first reference.
586:
inline in the text that ISRO has cooperation agreements with? It honestly seems to me that it would be more succinct to list those it
99:
398:
says "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". No matter how long the article is As it is we have
374:
163:
603:
I also wonder what encyclopedic purpose the graphs and table about ISRO's budget history serve. Again, this feels like fancruft.
82:
559:
The ITLU "was to be set up". This language suggests this did not happen. If that was the case, why? If it did happen, when?
59:
538:
the table above, as does some of the information in the first sentence of the
Directorate graf immediately below it.
334:
and covers the subject exhaustively (It better, at this length). I learned some things I didn't know I didn't know.
370:
727:
211:
182:
23:
708:
665:
619:
303:
289:
271:
238:
196:
157:
357:
the issues with the footnotes. Thanks! All I needed to do with the latter was add some access dates.
257:
437:
298:
OK, the copy editing is finally done. I will be back with my review in, I hope, a couple of days.
723:
384:
207:
178:
403:
380:
719:
704:
661:
615:
454:
that the technology in question was developed by ISRO itself is what we're trying to get to.
299:
285:
267:
250:
234:
192:
174:
153:
703:
If the issues above are addressed, it can and should be renominated. Again, happy editing!
591:
406:
in the lead at this point—it feels like it might have been left over from when the intro
691:? I wonder). So, since none of the issues I raised have been addressed, this will be a
177:, Will you be able to review once again. I have made most of the changes you have told.
482:
457:
426:
595:
360:
OK, now, what needs to be addressed in order for me to promote this article to GA:
634:
395:
17:
683:(which I do appreciate, but that should have been the prelude to a feast).
327:
I will begin, as I always do, by discussing what I like about the article:
324:
OK. Finally. Fifteen months after this article was nominated, we're here.
527:
641:
353:
deleted) that I had identified in my hard copy and, most importantly,
637:
together, it should be no surprise that I am putting this nomination
520:
relevant, again, we have some that are only mentioned this one time.
526:
We then have these short, single-sentence sections, about which
366:
731:
712:
669:
623:
307:
293:
275:
261:
242:
215:
200:
186:
167:
573:? Language like that suggests a comparison is being made.
377:(and that article has, in response, bloated to 208K now).
383:
to be a GA. Certainly a lot of the considerations under
676:
141:
110:
509:
for the next section, basically a list and diagram of
456:In the future, also, the article should eschew the
569:The SCE-200 will be "far more powerful". Than
493:to GA status earlier this year. Figure it out.
590:, if there are any. Frankly this seems a bit
8:
24:Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation/GA2
394:Right off the bat, the intro is too long.
37:
514:agencies that work with ISRO regularly.
68:
40:
369:, at 178K. It is longer than the 182K
229:—for a proper review. I will take it.
681:a virtual cup of tea by way of thanks
7:
491:Museum of Contemporary Art Australia
31:
640:
340:fat, so to speak, but not a lot.
225:OK, this has waited over a year—
650:The work that needs to be done
255:So, have you any comments now?
464:English, I don't know, but it
379:This is not to say that it is
375:this lengthy quick-fail review
1:
468:(or was) hard on the reader.
410:, more or less, the article.
748:
505:I also don't see the need
243:02:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
168:02:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
670:05:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
624:04:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
308:04:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
732:17:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
713:05:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
598:would apply better here.
371:University of Notre Dame
294:20:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
276:03:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
262:02:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
216:18:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
201:06:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
187:05:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
373:article that led me to
481:My unfamiliarity with
633:After putting this
584:every single nation
677:someone has given
582:necessary to list
404:really not needed
96:
95:
22:(Redirected from
739:
644:
442:
436:
431:
425:
254:
146:
137:
118:
50:Copyvio detector
38:
27:
747:
746:
742:
741:
740:
738:
737:
736:
696:
658:Happy editing!
440:
434:
429:
423:
322:
258:Aman Kumar Goel
248:
127:
104:
98:
92:
64:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
745:
743:
735:
734:
694:
627:
626:
611:
610:
605:
604:
600:
599:
575:
574:
566:
565:
561:
560:
556:
555:
551:
550:
545:
544:
523:
522:
502:
501:
496:
495:
483:Indian English
478:
477:
445:
444:
416:
415:
391:
390:
321:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
147:
94:
93:
91:
90:
85:
80:
74:
71:
70:
66:
65:
63:
62:
60:External links
57:
52:
46:
43:
42:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
744:
733:
729:
725:
724:Theknowhowman
721:
717:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
701:
699:
692:
690:
684:
682:
680:
672:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
653:
648:
647:
643:
638:
636:
631:
625:
621:
617:
613:
612:
607:
606:
602:
601:
597:
596:summary style
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
572:
568:
567:
563:
562:
558:
557:
553:
552:
547:
546:
543:
539:
534:
529:
525:
524:
521:
519:
512:
508:
504:
503:
498:
497:
494:
492:
484:
480:
479:
476:
474:
469:
467:
463:
459:
458:passive voice
452:
447:
446:
439:
428:
422:
418:
417:
414:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
389:
386:
382:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:
361:
358:
356:
350:
346:
342:
341:
335:
333:
332:comprehensive
328:
325:
319:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:
263:
260:
259:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
230:
228:
217:
213:
209:
208:Theknowhowman
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
179:Theknowhowman
176:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
162:
159:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
103:
102:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
75:
73:
72:
67:
61:
58:
56:
53:
51:
48:
47:
45:
44:
39:
33:
25:
19:
702:
697:
693:
688:
685:
678:
673:
660:
657:
651:
649:
645:
639:
632:
628:
587:
583:
579:
570:
540:
536:
531:
517:
515:
510:
506:
487:
472:
470:
465:
461:
455:
450:
420:
411:
407:
399:
378:
359:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
331:
329:
326:
323:
281:
256:
231:
227:far too long
226:
224:
160:
150:
149:
142:
138:
124:Article talk
123:
119:
100:
97:
88:Instructions
720:Daniel Case
705:Daniel Case
662:Daniel Case
616:Daniel Case
530:counsels: "
300:Daniel Case
286:Daniel Case
268:Daniel Case
251:Daniel Case
235:Daniel Case
193:Daniel Case
175:Daniel Case
154:Daniel Case
111:visual edit
635:punch list
438:refimprove
419:There are
388:important.
55:Authorship
41:GA toolbox
396:MOS:INTRO
151:Reviewer:
78:Templates
69:Reviewing
34:GA Review
18:Talk:ISRO
533:instead.
528:MOS:PARA
385:SIZERULE
381:too long
164:contribs
83:Criteria
646:On hold
588:doesn't
549:cannot?
486:choice.
134:history
115:history
101:Article
689:record
592:crufty
580:really
578:Is it
507:at all
500:pages.
330:It is
320:Review
542:list.
143:Watch
16:<
728:talk
718:Hi @
709:talk
698:Fail
666:talk
620:talk
571:what
473:were
451:many
427:fact
367:NASA
304:talk
290:talk
272:talk
239:talk
212:talk
197:talk
183:talk
173:Hi @
158:talk
130:edit
107:edit
652:can
518:are
511:all
462:not
408:was
400:six
355:all
282:now
730:)
711:)
700:.
679:me
668:)
622:)
594:;
466:is
441:}}
435:{{
430:}}
424:{{
421:23
306:)
292:)
284:.
274:)
241:)
214:)
199:)
185:)
166:)
132:|
113:|
109:|
726:(
707:(
695:âś—
664:(
618:(
535:"
443:.
302:(
288:(
270:(
253::
249:@
237:(
210:(
195:(
181:(
161:·
156:(
139:·
136:)
128:(
120:·
117:)
105:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.