Talk:ISRO/GA5

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Criteria Breakdown

• 1. Well-written:
  • Prose & Flow: The prose is clear, encyclopedic, and meets standards across all sections.
  • Layout & Structure (MOS:LAYOUT): The article structure was audited to resolve WP:OVERSECTION. Stubby, single-paragraph subsections under "Applications" and "Upcoming launches" were consolidated into cohesive thematic paragraphs or formatted cleanly with bold run-in descriptors. The misplaced dynamic list maintenance banner under satellite programs was removed. The lead section satisfies WP:LEAD by comprehensively summarizing the agency's history, infrastructure, and milestone missions without introducing unsourced or disproportionate detail.

• 2. Verifiable with no original research:
  • Citations & Reliability (WP:RS): Key milestones, launch records, budgetary figures, and inter-agency collaborations are thoroughly cited.
  • Link & Source Auditing: A thorough audit of external citations was conducted. Working URLs were archived against link rot via InternetArchiveBot, and flagged dead/unreachable references were examined and replaced with reliable, independent secondary sources where necessary. Unreliable/spammy links were purged or substituted. No original research is present.

• 3. Broad in its coverage:
  • Scope: Covers ISRO's full trajectory—from its INCOSPAR origins, early SLV/sounding rocket development, and foundational satellite networks (INSAT, IRS, NavIC) to deep space exploration (Chandrayaan, MOM, Aditya-L1) and upcoming human spaceflight initiatives (Gaganyaan, BAS).
  • Focus: Maintains appropriate summary style without bogging the reader down in day-to-day administrative minutiae.

• 4. Neutral point of view:
  • Tone remains strictly encyclopedic throughout. Promotional phrasing and peacock terms have been avoided. Sensitive and controversial matters (such as the Antrix-Devas S-band spectrum controversy and early launch setbacks) are covered neutrally and given balanced weight.

• 5. Stability:
  • The edit history demonstrates steady, constructive maintenance and expansion with no active edit wars or content disputes.

• 6. Illustrated:
  • The article contains relevant, high-quality images, diagrams, and mission renders. Images on Wikimedia Commons have verified free/permissive licenses or appropriate fair-use documentation for logos, with clear captions and informative alt text.

Summary

The article has undergone a solid structural and reference cleanup during this review, resolving earlier issues with subsection sprawl and source hygiene. It fulfills all requirements under WP:WIAGA.

Result: Pass as a Good Article. Excellent work by all contributors! Noukayami^(talk) 08:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: Akshadev (talk · contribs) 17:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Noukayami (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Akshadev

This is regarding the discussion of GA nominee ISRO Please verify the main image of ISRO headquarter used in ISRO article Noukayami^(talk) 02:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The image may be under copyrighted by ISRO.Noukayami^(talk) 03:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to verify an image, so I removed it. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 04:38, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Noukayami, I don't think the image is copyrighted but you should try to get VRTS ticket for the image Abdullah1099 (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099

On hold Noukayami^(talk) 15:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing... Noukayami^(talk) 01:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The "Other satellites" section contains the text of a maintenance template: "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness..." Good Articles cannot have cleanup or expansion banners.

I just removed the tag.

If someone can complete that prose please do that so Noukayami^(talk) 02:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The article suffers slightly from WP:OVERSECTION. Subsections like "Bodyguard satellites", "other satellite", "Space station", and "Academic" are only a single short paragraph. These should be merged into their parent sections (e.g., merging "Academic" into a broader "Civilian Applications" paragraph) to improve readability. Noukayami^(talk) 02:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Is it necessary to keep the subsection of ISRO#Launch statistics of ISRO in the article or not? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 02:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary, and you should remove the standalone subsection heading.

For a Good Article (GA) review, keeping it as its own subsection is actually a liability for two reasons:

1. It violates WP

OVERSECTION

The entire section is essentially a single run-on sentence listing raw numbers:

"As of [date], ISRO has launched 434 foreign satellites... performed 135 spacecraft missions... launched 18 student satellites, 105 launch missions, and 9 re-entry missions."

A subsection heading for a single sentence disrupts reading flow and creates unnecessary Table of Contents clutter.

2. Maintenance and WP

DATED issues

Raw tallies date quickly. GA reviewers often look at mission counts and check whether the sources are current. If ISRO conducts a launch next month, this section immediately becomes outdated.

What to do with the content

Do not delete the information entirely—just remove the heading and integrate the numbers where they naturally belong:

• Merge it into the parent section prose: Place the sentence at the end of the introductory text under == General satellite programmes == or within the launch vehicle overview.
• Format with the {{As of}} template: When placing it in prose, use Wikipedia's template format (e.g., {{As of|2026|4|lc=y}}) so editors know when the tally was last verified against official ISRO reports.
• Rely on the main list article: Detailed, constantly changing tallies belong in a dedicated list article like [[List of ISRO missions]] using a {{Main|List of ISRO missions}} hatnote, leaving only a broad summary in the parent ISRO article.

Noukayami^(talk) 03:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

And please ensure every single image in the article has "Alt text" (alternative text for visually impaired readers using screen readers). Noukayami^(talk) 03:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Check these potentially spammy link and fix them Noukayami^(talk) 03:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

http://newsroom24x7.com/2015/03/20/2862/antrix-devas-news-lalit-shastri/#main

http://newsroom24x7.com/2015/03/18/cbi-registers-case-in-the-huge-antrix-devas-scam/

http://newsroom24x7.com/2015/03/20/antrix-devas-agreement-national-security-and-cbi/ Noukayami^(talk) 03:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

i have fixed most of the oversection problem. Noukayami^(talk) 04:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Noukayami^(talk) 03:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

http://isro.org/satellites/navigationsatellites.aspx

https://pqals.nic.in/annex/1711/AU5386.pdf

http://www.isro.org/space_science/images/BalloonXrayStudies.htm

http://epaper.mailtoday.in/c/26281749

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iaf-to-induct-214-fifth-generation-fighter-jets/189940-3.html

These links are down

Fix them Noukayami^(talk) 03:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't locate a single one of them. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 06:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Akshadev

please specify

are you unable to find new reference or unable to the position of the spammy links.

I have already mentioned the links of the spammy one if you are unable to find their position, use

FIND IN PAGE feature from chrome of your device.

If still not working ,

just wait I am working on these and i will fix them (may takes hours). Noukayami^(talk) 06:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I meant I couldn't locate the spammy links. I tried your suggestion, but that also didn't help. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 06:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

these are too many links which are down/spammy/broken

https://link-dispenser.toolforge.org/analysis/23a94a62-ca29-43b2-ad9e-9538b73c7d88

Focus purely on fixing the Spammy, Dead, and Down links.

Having unarchived (but still working/live) links will not fail your GA review. It is a "best practice," not a strict requirement for passing. Noukayami^(talk) 04:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I am seeing that you've fixed several links all by yourself (which I really appreciate). I edit Wikipedia through mobile phone, and I see fewer options to improve things. Can you guide me how to fix links using a mobile phone? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 04:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Locate these 5 spammy links in the article.

If the sentence they support is important, run a quick Google search for those facts and replace the citation with a high-quality secondary source (The Hindu, BBC, Space.com, etc.).

If the sentence is just promotional fluff that adds no encyclopedic value, delete both the sentence and the link entirely. Noukayami^(talk) 04:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

the problem was just status defined which was saying as live and I fixed that Noukayami^(talk) 08:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Test and Ignore the "Down" Links (False Positives)

Link-checking bots routinely flag official Indian government domains (isro.gov.in, pib.gov.in) as "down" because India's National Informatics Centre (NIC) firewalls actively block automated scraping.

• Manually click 3 or 4 of these "down" links in your browser.
• If the pages load normally for you, do nothing. You can completely ignore the warning for the rest of that domain.

Noukayami^(talk) 04:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Test and Ignore the "Down" Links (False Positives)

Link-checking bots routinely flag official Indian government domains (isro.gov.in, pib.gov.in) as "down" because India's National Informatics Centre (NIC) firewalls actively block automated scraping.

Manually click 3 or 4 of these "down" links in your browser.

If the pages load normally for you, do nothing. You can completely ignore the warning for the rest of that domain. Noukayami^(talk) 04:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.