Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers. The old nominations in need of additional reviews are: Exploration of Jupiter •

Shortcuts: WP:GAR WP:GA/R Good article reassessment is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. It also allows feedback to be given for delisted articles or failed nomination when the explanation for delisting or failure was inadequate. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. edit guidelines

Individual reassessment When to use this process Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria. Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself. How to use this process Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination). Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window. Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for this purpose, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{GA}} template from the article talk page. To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted".

Community reassessment When to use this process Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved. If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises. If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered. How to use this process Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page). Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour. It is also courteous to notify the most recent GA reviewer. See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest that the article be renominated.

Guidelines for reviewers. Please consult the good article criteria before you comment on whether an article should have its status changed or not.

All suggestions for improving articles are welcome, but criticisms not based on the good article criteria do not ordinarily disqualify an article from good article status. Note also that if an article is listed here, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it does not meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Furthermore, reviewers should feel free to fix problems with articles under review if they wish: this is not regarded as a conflict of interest, and may encourage regular editors of the article to engage more actively with the reassessment process. Good article reassessment is not a deletion discussion, but many of the guidelines for contributing to such discussions (such as the essay on arguments to avoid) contain useful advice. Any registered user can list or delist a good article (see above), but for articles listed here, please follow the archiving guidelines below for closing discussions and changing the status of the article.

Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion. When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed: please click on the "show" link for guidelines on when to close discussions. To close a the discussion, go to the community reassessment page of the article and replace {{GAR/current}} by {{subst:GAR/result|result=result}} ~~~~. Here you should state the result (whether there was consensus, and what action was taken) and explain carefully how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. On the talk page of the article, replace {{GAR/link|GARpage=n}} by {{GAR/link|~~~~~|GARpage=n|status=result}} (five tildes) at the top of the page, where the result is one of "listed", "delisted", "kept" or "not listed"; alternatively, remove {{GAR/link}} from the top of the talk page and add or update {{ArticleHistory}}. If the result changes the GA status, update the article talk page templates and the good articles list accordingly. The reassessment discussion will automatically be removed from the good article reassessment page and added to the current archive within an hour. edit archiving guidelines

Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 7 days old, unless at least five editors have expressed an opinion the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus. However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged. Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining what the consensus of the reviewers is, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles. If there is a clear weight of argument that a current good article does not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted. If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article. If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions."

Good article reassessment (update archive number)

(Current archive: 44) →

Contents 1 Articles needing review and possible reassessment 2 Articles listed for community reassessment 2.1 Jesus 2.2 Accounting period 2.3 Renewable energy industry 2.4 Shaun Goater 2.5 Jovan Vladimir 2.6 Brat Pack (film) 2.7 50 Cent 2.8 Exploration of Jupiter 2.8.1 Initial comments 2.8.2 Comments from Philcha 2.8.2.1 Coverage 2.8.2.2 Presentation 2.8.2.3 Technical requirements 2.8.2.4 Pioneer program (1973 and 1974) 2.8.2.5 Voyager program (1979) 2.8.2.6 later sections 2.8.2.7 Images 2.8.2.8 Links check 2.8.2.9 Lead 2.8.2.10 Verdict 2.8.3 Further comments 3 OK

[edit] Articles needing review and possible reassessment

The articles below would benefit from the attention of GA reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GA request}} from the article talk page. In other cases, simply remove the template from the article talk page.

• 22:25:06, 13/06/2009: Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics
  

• 20:02:36, 20/06/2009: Peru national football team
  

• 20:18:06, 20/06/2009: Garden City High School (Kansas)
  
• (23:54:01, 05/07/2009: Current date for reference)

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GA request}} to the article talk page.

[edit] Articles listed for community reassessment

[edit] Jesus

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This article is a mess and leaves a lot to be desired. I don't think there's any way it would pass a GA review today. Many of the sections have been split into sub-articles. What's left isn't in summary style but in choppy prose that doesn't seem to have any overall cohesion or purpose. Huge sections consist of dozens of two-sentence paragraphs. There's a whole lot of unsourced statements and original research. The article uses the abhorrent "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" notation. There's a lot of unlinked religious jargon ("Scholars commonly surmise that Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, like John's."). The images are all listed as public domain but no sources are provided for any of them, and many have nothing to do with the sections they appear in ("Other early views" describes the Ebionites and Gnostics but is illustrated by El Greco, a sixteenth century Catholic).

I'm listing this for community reassessment as it may be conscientious. —Noisalt (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Question. The article is listed as "A" class. Under current guidelines can it be double-rated as both A and GA, or should it be automatically GA de-listed if it is an A? Majoreditor (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be both. A-class is a rating given by individual WikiProjects, while GA is an encyclopedia-wide designation. As the two processes are separate, neither has an effect on the other. —Noisalt (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This article was never actually reviewed, someone just slapped a tag on there after it failed FAC. —Noisalt (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of the information pointed out by Noisalt (talk · contribs), I'd say this should be a delist. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Accounting period

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Accounting Period in a general sense does not mean the meaning expressed in the article. The term has been defined with reference to United Kingdom Income Tax but the term has a global meaning apart from it. Accounting Period actually denotes a period for which Accounts are balanced and a balance sheet is prepared at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SivaneshR (talk • contribs)

---

[edit] Renewable energy industry

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This article about the "renewable energy industry" does not follow from the definition of "renewable energy" or "renewable resources" in wikipedia and so lacks balance/neutrality/objectivity. E.g. it excludes hydro, geothermal, focusses heavily on wind, etc.

cocosmooth (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. This article is under-sourced, relying too much on RGSR. Given the amount of publicity this subject has receive we should expect more and better references. For example, I suspect that certain other reliable sources would define Renewable Energy differently than what's shown in the article: The present-day renewable-energy industry is an energy industry focusing on "new" and "appropriate" renewable energy technologies, which excludes large-scale hydro-electricity.

There are also MoS problems. Some sections are stubby while others are poorly written (for example: The wind power and solar photovoltaics (PV) industries provide good examples of this)

This article needs substantial work. It will best best to delist for now. Majoreditor (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Shaun Goater

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This was made a GA some time ago when the GA requirements were much more lenient. There are quite a few unsourced statements and even some unsourced paragraphs. Spiderone (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with the nom. A lot of referencing work is needed in this article. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This article was only reassessed in November of last year (so about eight months ago). The few unrefernced elements should be easy enough to find, so I'll look for them. However some of the ones tagged by the requestor of this review don't even look like they need a reference. Paul  Bradbury 16:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

However, it is nowhere near as good as typical GAs such as Fernando Torres or Leo Fortune-West in this department. Spiderone (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Requested references now added. As for if its good enough, that's your opinion and not why you listed it. However it has passed GA assesment, and reassesment and appears to meet all of the criteria. I am sure like all articles it could be improved, maybe you would like to have a go instead of trying to get it reassessed. Paul  Bradbury 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about any offence caused but I honestly thought it wasn't as good as the likes of Xabi Alonso, Andy Hessenthaler and the ones I've mentioned before. It looks better now. Spiderone (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it just bothers me when people try to delete or demote etc. instead of trying to fix or create. It took me an hour to find the relevant references and had you brought that up at the talk page rather than just refer to a review I could have done the same (or so could you). These reviews take peoples time, time in this case that would be better spent reviewing other articles or ehancing or creating others. I don't agree that the articles that you mention are all better than this, in fact I think some are worse. But thats my opinion. If this had only been reviewed a few years ago I would have less of an issue. But it was reviewed recently and has not changed substancially since then, so you are effectiveley contesting that review. Guidlines etc. havn't changed substancially from Nov 2008 either. Paul  Bradbury 19:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. All in all, the article is well referenced. I have added one additional citation request tag to the article for sports statistic. Ideally, the Personal Life section will be expanded, although I'd like someone who is more familiar with the subject to make specific suggestions on what else needs to be included in the section in order to meet GA criteria. At the moment I suspect that this article will be a keeper once we iron out these few remaining issues. Majoreditor (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Are nominators / major contributors not notified when articles are nominated for this process? I've only happened to notice this through seeing on my watchlist that Pbradbury has been making a series of edits. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is my first time and I only thought I had to notify the last reviewer. Spiderone (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have put it in the "Articles needing review and possible reassessment" section instead Spiderone (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Jovan Vladimir

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result pending

Following a brief GAN review, and a unsuccessful FAC, comments would be appreciated as to whether this article currently meets the GA criteria, and if not, what improvements are needed. Geometry guy 20:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look it over next week. I scanned it briefly and think that it is close to meeting GA criteria. The article contains a few assertions which may need in-line citations; for example: "The cult of Saint Jovan Vladimir has been cherished in Macedonia for centuries". There are also some minor MoS concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Can someone help explain where this reference by Elsie comes from? I can't tell if it's self-published, form a journal or something altogether. From what I can tell he seems to be a credible expert in Albanian affairs, but I'd appreciate any details which can confirm that it is indeed a reliable source. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Elbasan Gospel Manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit), 1761, and the struggle for an original Albanian alphabet. in: Südost-Forschungen, Munich, 54, 1995, p. 105-159.

http://www.suedost-institut.de/fileadmin/dokumente/SOF1995.pdf

---

[edit] Brat Pack (film)

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This was nominated some time ago, and given a review that had less than helpful comments. Even after requesting additional feedback, and making the few adjustments that were specifically requested, the initial reviewer failed to respond and the article was summarily failed. Upon second nomination, the reviewer did not even bother to go through the steps of creating a review page, but instead failed the article based on its length (which is specifically listed in the notes as not a criteria for a good article), it not having an infobox (again, not listed as a criteria for a good article), and being of "poor quality". I am simply calling for a fair and helpful review of the article. What needs to be done to bring it up to good article status? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Referencing looks pretty good, aside from the Filmography section which could be improved by having an in-line cite next to each entry, not absolutely necessary though if there is one genera WP:RS reference for this. Just not exactly sure what this article is trying to be, and what other articles could be used for comparison. It seems a little bit skimpy for the scope of topic it is supposed to cover. There is no Reception subsection. The lede seems a bit short, and as opposed to WP:LEAD, the lede seems to introduce new information with its own sources, rather than summarize the article itself. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: It looks like you've done a good job figuring out the exact members. However, it lacks broad coverage. I might suggest modeling it after Algonquin Round Table, replacing the Activies and No Siree! sections with one about their films. There are plenty of books covering the subject, so there's no shortage of information out there. For example, the article mentions their partying but doesn't say anything about it. The table is a little confusing, first character names and then the last column with actor names, I prefer how it's done at Frat Pack with "lead", "supporting role", etc., or a simple list like the one at Rat Pack. Also, the article's title, the "(film)" disambiguation is reserved for actual movies. I'd recommend proving it's the primary use and put in a move request, or change it to (actors) or something else instead. Doctor Sunshine talk 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why is this article still listed at WP:GAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The review being reassessed is clearly invalid-- not an adequate review, and the nominator doesn't think it's GA as is. According to our procedures, isn't this a case of a non-review and the article should be renominated at GAN (GAC)? It seems to me this isn't the appropriate venue. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thats hard to say but I would think sending it back to GAN would be the best option. I do think that the articles second GAN may not have been handled in a proper way, this article needs more work before reaching GA status but I would have reviewed this in a different manner then the 2nd reviewer did. As for the proper outlet to go to from here, I don't know how policy handles a situation like this but if this is not renominated at GAN, perhaps a peer review would not hurt in getting this article to GA status. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems the reviewer got in over his head and expressed a desire to back out gracefully. And this community reassessment shouldn't have been opened without the nominator and reviewer discussing the matter first. Unless there's any objection, I think this can be closed. In the meantime, I'll undo the partially undone fail and link the partially done review here. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Was going to close this but I'm going to revise my statement slightly. The review in question may not have been handled very well but we've had two people review it here and no work has been done. I've removed it from GAN as it shouldn't have been listed both here and there. Since the standard outcome of this GAR should be to "list" or "not list" it, and again we've had two people review it here, relisting it ourselves at GAN would be redundant. The article does not meet the GA criteria at this time but, because my previous post confused the matter, I'm going to give this another day or two and then close this, unless some work is done. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] 50 Cent

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

This article needs a reassessment, Because some paragraphs are without references and parts of the Controversy section do not present a neutral point of view. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 01:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: When referring to 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) in the Feud with Lil Wayne sub-section, sometimes it refers to him a just "50" and others as "50 Cent". Surely he should be referred to as "50 Cent or his given name "Curtis Jackson" not "50" as the reader may get confused. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with the GAR nominator, that this GA (from July 2007) could stand for some improvements. There are some referencing issues and unsourced bits throughout, as well as use of poor sources such as IMDB. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The article needs some work, but it should be doable. Another problem is malformed references, with bare URLs, particularly towards the end. Lampman (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Although there are enough refs to work with and some FA are at a worse state. Problem is many refs aren't working [1], Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  

---

[edit] Exploration of Jupiter

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

[edit] Initial comments

I peer reviewed this article and found numerous problems with the use of sources, specifically, a number of citations did not contain the information being cited. I started an individual re-assessment, but the editor involved believes that I am out of line and has requested a community re-assessment. I'm therefore doing so; I hope that's not against the rules about requesting re-assessments. Ricardiana (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your request for reassessment is perfectly fine. Note that community reassessment will address whether or not the article meets the criteria, not whether your review or review decision was appropriate. However, I've left a couple of comments on the associated talk page. Geometry guy 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The WP:LEAD of the article appears to be a bit short. Other than that, there appear to be many valid points that were raised previously at Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2 that should be addressed - specifically: the point about Notes 6, 30, and 31. Further, the sources used appear to be primarily websites of NASA, some formerly active websites now inactive, and sites of other space agencies. The article appears to lack truly secondary sources, and could stand to benefit from researching discussion in sources such as published books, scholarly works, journal articles on the subject, and news coverage. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the citing issues listed there should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not added any secondary sources beyond a website or two, or changed the lead. Ricardiana (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Philcha

I won't comment on quality of sources or how well they support the text, as that has already been done at Wikipedia:Peer review/Exploration of Jupiter/archive1.

[edit] Coverage

• Nothing about the mission profiles, not even launch dates - e.g. these would give some idea of the distances involved. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why a mission profile would be necessary. Most of them were flybys, and asides from saying when were the probes near the planet and what did they do, I am not sure how would anything else contribute to the topic. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing about the technologies used, especially any new ones - propulsion (makes missions faster and more flexible), instruments (what info the probes can gather), power supply (see e.g.the subsystem shut-down schedule for Voyager 1). PS I'm no technical expert, just a long-time SF fan, and such gaps jump off the page at me.-Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not very clear to me why would these have to be included here and not in the History of space exploration article instead. To me the topic of the article is the exploration part, not really how was it done. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation

• Some poor prose, e.g.: "are accomplished at a high cost in energy" in section "Technical requirements" (try plain English); in "increasing its inclination of the ecliptic to 80.2 degrees" (section "Ulysses (1992)"), "in" is the wrong preposition, as the probes did not change the ecliptic's inclination; "Discovery of volcanic activity on the moon Io was the greatest unexpected discovery regarding Jupiter, since it was the first time an active volcano has been observed on another celestial body" could be much more concise (section "Voyager program (1979)"). Please check the prose thoughout the article.

fixed a couple

• Some terms not explained or wikilinked, e.g.: "low Earth orbit" (section "Technical requirements"); "crustal rifting or tectonic processes" and "tidal heating" (section "Voyager program (1979)"). Please check right through for terms that need to be explained and / or wikilinked. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

went through a bunch

• N Not done Inconsistencies about italicisation of probe names, e.g, in the first 2 sentences of section "Ulysses (1992)". Please check throughout and ensure consistency. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

improved a few instances. n

Not all done. Hint: text search. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

tried that. all should be fixed now. Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• N Not done "the harsh charged-particle environment around Jupiter" is a straight copy from the source, and is easy to rephrase, i.e. it's a WP:COPYVIO. Please check for other copyvios and remedy any that are found. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How is the sentence now? Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"due to the harsh charged-particle environment that is found around Jupiter (for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)"

• Still copies the phrase "harsh charged-particle environment". --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with keeping an accurate scientific terminology? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• should have a brief explanation of why it's so harsh, instead of "(for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)". If the source from which "harsh charged-particle environment" is copied does not explain it, please provide additional refs. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 full paragraphs in the magnetosphere article that explain that fairly well. I am not quite sure how to dumb down those 3 paragraphs into a sentence and still have a clear explanation. Nergaal (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Technical requirements

• At present it's hard to see the point of this section. However it could help to fill part of the gap about technologies, if it included an overview of the propulsion techs used (both "main" drive and steering thrusters). You'll almost certainly find that these were all chemical rockets, which have poor specific impulse, the space equivalent of "miles per gallon"; the obvious contrast is with ion drives, e.g. Deep Space One chased a comet for fun. For background info, see Spacecraft propulsion. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am understanding you wrong but: if one is discussing the expeditions to Mount Everest they it should be noted somewhere that for example there is a low oxygen level. But why would be necessary to discuss what or how many sherpa's are used? n.

• Assuming chemical rockets, should mention Hohmann transfer orbits, and how slow these are. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this covered under The energy needed to reach Jupiter from an Earth orbit requires a delta-V of about 9 km/s, compared to the 9.7 km/s delta-V needed to reach a low Earth orbit from the ground.

No. The fundamental problem with space flight (outside of science fiction) is quantity of reaction mass required. An ion drive produces vastly more delta-V than a chemical rocket becuase it gets far better "miles per gallon", but produces insufficient raw power for lift-off from Earth. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• You need to break down energy requirements into 3 parts: Earth to LEO; LEO to Jupiter's orbit, against the Sun's gravity; speed matching - for the last item, Interplanetary travel has a source that gives a table of planets' orbital velocities. Of course the actual numbers for LEO to Jupiter's orbit and for speed matching vary depending on whether it's a fly-by or an extended visit, and in the case of a fly-by whether it's "fast" or "slow". --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure speed matching is an actual requirement? This is not like two moving ships getting close to each other, but instead shooting a bullet to get trapped by the immense gravity of the "substar". This requirement would be valid for something small like an asteroid, but not a huge planet with an atmosphere serving as a cushion if needed. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I already said the energy required for speed-matching depends on whether the mission is a fast fly-by, slow fly-by or extended visit. The article raises this issue as it says Voyager 1 did a fast fly-by, Cassini–Huygens did a months-long fly-by and Galileo orbited for 8 years. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing got "trapped" by Jupiter's gravity - if it did, we'd be looking at some sort of "landing". --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re "gravity assists through planetary flybys can sometimes be used to reduce the energy required at launch":
  • This assumes a flight with just 1 main burn, as opposed to the more continuous operation of e.g. ion drive. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    It reduces the energy requirement regardless of the propulsion system. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    I think you're missing the point - regardless of the energy requirment, chemical rockets have poor specific impulse (space equivalent of "miles per gallon"). The constraint is reaction mass, not the simple energy requirement. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

    I agree, but regardless of the efficiency of the engine used, if you get a push from 100 to 200 xph you still reduce the overall fuel required, regardless if you drive a hummer or an electric car. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "at launch" focusses attention on lift-off from Earth's surface, but gravity assists don't reduce the cost of the Earth-to-LEO phase. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased it so sound it more clear. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re "... at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration to reach Jupiter", or to anywhere else, it's not specific to Jupiter. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is wrong. On short distances, slingshots usually do take longer times(=routes). But for very long distances, such as the outer Solar System, the spacecraft usually travels much faster with slingshots, and the change in path is relatively small compared to the entire distance, and therefore the overall trip takes less time. Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you're comparing it with. A WP article has to address non-specialists. Hence its baseline should be the "naive" approach, where the craft accelerates flat out and then decelerates flat out. This is theoretically the fastest, but its high reaction mass requirements run into a vicious circle (you need to lug to the mid-point the reaction mass you'll need after the midpoint, etc.). Once that's ruled out, a "boost and drift" flight to the outer solar system (w/o slingshots)may not be feasible because it's against the sun's gravity, or will be very slow for the same reason. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've just realised that "the planet appears to have no solid surface for landing" and "it only has a small rocky core" contradict each other. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Re "smooth transition between the atmosphere of Jupiter and the planet's fluid interior", fluid includes gases, so you need another term. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read Critical point (thermodynamics); there is NO difference between a gas and a liquid at the point one would normally call "the surface" of Jupiter. So fluid is actually the correct term. Nergaal (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but the article needs to provide some sort of explanation as this phenomenon is way outside normal human experience. At a minimum I'd be much more explicit about the lack of a clear boundary between gas and liquid, and wikilink to Critical point (thermodynamics). --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re "crushed by the immense pressures within Jupiter before reaching any solid point, thus making a landing mission impossible":
  • This makes the invalid assumption that the only useful visit is a landing on a solid surface. Ballooning through the atmosphere and floating on a liquid surface would also in principle make extended observation of the local environment possible. This needs to be thought through properly,. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, although I see absolutely no likelihood of anybody doing this outside of Hollywood or of video games. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That comment is plain WP:OR, and questionable - the Russians eventually landed a probe on Venus (92 atmospheres' pressure; corrosive because of high SO2 content; surface temperatures of over 460 °C). Why did no-one attempt a "landing" on Jupiter or some sort of extended stay in its atmosphere? --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Why not equalise pressure by letting the atmosphere in? Equalising pressure is an obvious solution, used in deep-sea exploration of Earth; and there's no indication that Jupiter's atmosphere is corrosive (unlike Venus') --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Galileo's probe died at 23 atmospheres and 153oC. Not many space probes will be designed to withstand that anytime soon. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Besides being a WP:COPYVIO, "the harsh charged-particle environment around Jupiter" needs an explanation of why the area around Jupiter is much "hotter" than that around Earth. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory note. n

Re "due to the harsh charged-particle environment that is found around Jupiter (for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)":

• It still contains "the harsh charged-particle environment", copied from the source. --Philcha (talk)
• Need to explain why Jupiter has this problem. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Y Done Re "the Galileo spacecraft, over the years it has orbited the planet", for how long? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelled out 8. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why was Voyager "far more technologically advanced" than Pioneer? I'd drop the phrase, as the section about the Voyager series should handle this. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The ref to Galileo FAQ - Navigation should link to the appropriate section of the FAQ. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• The same ref does not support "albeit at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration". --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think Rockets and Space Transportation is WP:RS. The "root" page now redirects to a personal website of someone who do not look like a faculty memeber at Caltech, so Rockets and Space Transportation is probalby a copy of a student or personal page. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I can see, most of para "A major problem in sending space probes to Jupiter ... extended observation of the local environment" is not supported by "A comparison of the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn" (url provided]; best to omit url and provide DOI, which is 10.1016/S0032-0633(99)00043-4). The ref only establishes (by a long, complicated chain of assumptions and calculations) upper bounds for the rocky cores of Jupiter and Saturn and explictly admits that one or both may lack a rocky core. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Passage "Another major issue is the amount of radiation to which a space probe is subjected ... redesigned to cope with the massive radiation levels" has only one ref: Wolverton, Mark (2004). The Depths of Space. Joseph Henry Press. pp. pp. 100–157. ISBN 9780309090506.  The cited page range, 100-157, spans 3 chapters, see TOC at Google books. While I often cite page ranges up to whole chapters, e.g. if there's a risk of taking source material out of context, 1 ref spanning 3 chapters is going too far. Please provide specific page numbers / ranges for each point which this book supports. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer program (1973 and 1974)

• "Pioneer I ... the spacecraft studied the planet's atmosphere, detected its magnetic field, observed its radiation belts and determined that Jupiter is mainly liquid" is uselessy vague. What did it discover, and how? I know it has to be brief, but that just means you have to think about how to convey max info in min words. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• It seems Pioneer 11 took some pretty but humungously expensive pics, and some other vaguely-described stuff. What did it achieve in scientific terms? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the information that NASA gives in its reports on the two missions. There were actual pioneers in the sense that people didn't really know what to expect so they only equipped them with cameras and antennas for sending information back. Nergaal (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Voyager program (1979)

• "Due to the greater resolution allowed by this close approach, most observations ... were made in the 48-hour period bracketing this approach" is a non sequitur. I think the logic is more like "in order to get greater resolution, most of the data was collected in the 48 hours ..." --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

changed

• Re "It finished photographing the planet in April", if this is not explained, it appears to contradict "most observations ... were made in the 48-hour period", which was around March 5, 1979. What value was added by the lonmer-range pics.? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

changed

• Re "An array of other smaller storms and eddies were found throughout the banded clouds", does "banded" refer to the "bands" and "zones" described in section "Cassini (2000)"? If so, explanation is required here (in "Voyager program (1979)"). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

added note

• Europa's 30km ice crust is "thin"? --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

in astronomical terms yes; unlike say Haumea, it is not a ball of ice, and it is "thin" enough that one could envision drilling though it; or maybe getting cracks all the way through the bottom. Nergaal (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] later sections

• I'll pause the section-by section walkthrough here. Please check for similar deficiencies in later sections. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Please recheck that all sources cited throughout the article are WP:RS and fully support the statements that preceded the refs. I've already found 2 issues in section "Technical requirements", which is relatively short. --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images

• Lead image:
  • has no caption, and hence no refs, so fails WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

switched to a better one. Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • does not explain the division into segments (by white lines) nor why some segments are red and others blue. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

is this still applicable? n

• • its "image description" at {{Exploration of Jupiter}} contains no references. These days this is required for any image that presents facts, unless the source given in the image description gives the necessary info (e.g. "the brownish blob" just below the Equator id the Grreat Red Spot"). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

? n

• The captions of the various Jupiter images make unverified assertions, including which probe took which pic. They need refs. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

done now? Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• The caption for File:Map of Jupiter.jpg should state that this is a view from a pole (which?), as most Jupiter pics are taken from approx over the equator. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

fixed. n

• Repeated pics of Jupiter become boring. Exploration of Jupiter requires other components, e.g. spacecraft, mission profiles, moons where relevant (e.g. Europa's "intersecting linear features"). To make room for these I'd consider dropping others, but would keep File:Map of Jupiter.jpg (it's from a pole!), [[:File:PIA04866 modest.jpg}} (superb quality), File:Jupiter showing SL9 impact sites.jpg (natural "exploration"; dramatic; can you give estimates of the size of the "pockmarks", w ref of course?) and possibly File:P10A28.jpg (pic from first probe is notable for that reason - provided it's verified). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

replaced with more representative ones. Nergaal (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Links check

The link checker shows some problems:

• accessdates required for several. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

done

• One dead link, try Internet Archive (instructions at User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died). --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That link died only a few weeks ago; fixed. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Check the items with "redirect" / "moved to" comments in the report, to make sure they still provide the expected content. If not, try Internet Archive. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

checked. n

[edit] Lead

(leave until very last, when all other content stable)

[edit] Verdict

• At present the article is far short of GA standard: sourcing issues identified at Wikipedia:Peer review/Exploration of Jupiter/archive1 have apparently not been resolved; other verification issues in the images; gaps in coverage and logic that a moderately enthusiastic teenager would spot; sub-optimal choice of images; missing / poor explanation of technical terms; prose issues; at least one WP:COPYVIO. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing issues there have been solved, but the reviewer declined to rereview those issues. Nergaal (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Also, Philcha and Cirt, as well as Geometryguy, are looking at the current version of the page - and they still see problems. Ricardiana (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

←the sourcing points should be solved, see here: Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but doesn't address Cirt's and Philcha's comments. Ricardiana (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article's history page shows that you have made only 2 edits since this community GAR was begun - unsubstantive edits. Ricardiana (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly is your problem. I have not tried to insinuate that I have solved those comments; I said only that I have tried to address the sourcing issues which in my opinion are the most pressing ones. Nergaal (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and one more thing: the article went from 25.4 to 32.3k [2]. Instead of bickering you have made during this weeks, you could have added yourself another 5k of information to the article. Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been improved largely through my prodding, first at peer review, second at the individual GAR I began, and now at this community GAR that I began because you felt that "This is clearly out of your reach" [3] (evidently you now think otherwise; or is it out of my reach to review the article, but not to add to it?) I am sorry if I've allowed my annoyance at your numerous personal attacks to affect the level of my zeal here. Nonetheless, I am not impressed with someone who attributes information to sources that don't contain that information; attacks the person who points that out; replaces some sources with other sources that still don't contain the cited information (including one from the 19th century! that's still my favorite); attacks the reviewer further; requests a community GAR which has the effect, intentional or not, of buying more time to work on the article's numerous problems; and then, at that community GAR, only responds to the concerns that I raised, rather than to other reviewers' concerns. What I have tried to point out (and again, my annoyance at your attitude towards me may have affected my zeal here) is that, rather than following me around, you should engage with the other reviewers here. Ricardiana (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please concentrate here on whether the article currently meets the GA criteria. Discussion about the reassessment belongs at WT:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1. For interpersonal matters, please use User talk. Thanks. Geometry guy 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments

• Further comments are welcome below, but if none are forthcoming, there does appear to be enough consensus to close in the next few days. Geometry guy 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all the citing issues in text should be solved now. I have solved part of the technicalities raised, and I have left the intro for later. Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If i were first seeing the article as it is now, i would still say delist. The lead remains too short and does not summarise the article, and many of the points Philcha brought up still need more work on them. Hence delist now and renominate later.YobMod 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE it appears that the last major concern was the intro, so I went ahead and bulked that up from 1 para to 3 paragraphs. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This was sterted a month ago; can this process be sped up? Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing problems

• Article primarily cites NASA webpages. Ideally, sources for a GA should be from third-party publications. Many books discuss the topic and sub-topics at hand; many of those are available at least in part through Google Books; few are cited.
• Several statements are cited to sources that do not give the cited information. I only checked the first 30 or so, and found these problems:

• "Nevertheless, in principle it would be still possible to send probes to float at levels of lower pressure, thus allowing for limited, but extended observation of the local environment" is cited to an article in Planetary and Space Sciences." I've read the article through my university database; it mentions probes only once and does not say this about them.
• "Voyager spacecraft had to be redesigned to cope with the massive radiation levels" is cited to a chunk of Mark Wolverton's book. As Philcha points out, citing to a page range of 50+ pages is not acceptable. Further, a search of those 50 pages on Google Books does not seem to contain at any point the cited information.
• "determined that Jupiter is mainly fluid" Commonplace info, but not contained in cited source.
• "576,000 km away from the planet's cloud tops" Figure given in source is 57.6 million km.
• Note 11 only gives a DOI. It should give author, title, date, and journal information.
• Notes 12 and 13 purport to cite information about satellites Adrastea and Metis; the website in note 12 does not mention either satellite. The JStor article mentions and pictures the small dark spots that were noticed, but does not name them. (Note 14 actually does discuss these two satellites, with the given names, and should be cited here as well as later on.)
• What makes this webpage a reliable source?
• Quotation "might have been painted on with a felt marker" needs citation directly after it.
• Statement "Europa is internally active" is cited to a source that says only that this may be so. That is not acceptable.
• The section on Ulysses contains only two references, both given at the end. It would be better to cite the section throughout, distinguishing what information comes from what source.
• Notes 20 and 22 are the same, and are both cited to a page range of 1 through 8. Specific page numbers should be cited.
• "The spacecraft ... made its closest approach on February 28, 2007" is cited to a web page from 2006, which says that February 28 of the following year was planned on. This does not confirm that it actually happened on that day.
• Note 25 cites information about Himalia and Elara; neither Himalia nor Elara are even mentioned in the source.

• A number of Philcha's points, above, have not been addressed, specifically:

• Use of [4], evidently a student website.
• The statement "at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration to reach a target such as Jupiter" is not supported by the cited source.

• Issues with the writing quality. I only read the end and the first half or so; these are the problems I noticed:

• "All of these were by NASA" - needs a further verb.
• "Asides from taking" --> "Aside from"
• Repetitive word choice and sentence structure in para. 2 of lead. "X approached ... and [verb].... Y approached ... and [verb]."
• "arriving at Jupiter in 1995 and analyzing the planet until 2003. and the only one to have entered its atmosphere" Sentence fragment; even re-punctuated, the sentence will be poorly structured with too many "and"s in succession.
• "During this period it gathered a large amount of information about the Jovian system, making close approaches to all of the four giant Galilean moons and finding evidence for a thin atmosphere and also the possible presence of seawater on three of them, a magnetic field around Ganymede" Last clause does not fit with the grammar of the rest of the sentence; overly-long sentence in general.
• "It also witnessed the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it approached Jupiter" Does the second "it" refer to the comet, or to the Galileo spacecraft?
• "In order for a spacecraft to reach the orbit of Jupiter from the Earth's orbit, it requires almost the same amount of energy as it does to lift it from the surface of Earth and put it into a low Earth orbit" - Wordy. Could be "For a spacecraft to ... requires ...".
• "as the radiation had caused its imaging photo polarimeter to receive a number of spurious commands" As you're writing for a general reader, it should be clearer what's going on here. What are "spurious commands", and what are they doing - erasing pictures, taking pictures over pictures, what?
• "over the eight years it has orbited the planet" Should be in past tense.
• "and obtained dramatic images of the Great Red Spot, made the first observation of Jupiter's immense polar regions, and determined the mass of Jupiter's moon Callisto" Again, too many "and"s. Also, incorrect punctuation in the sentence following.
• "even though the photographing the planet continued until April" Should be "the photographing of the planet".
• "The revealed previously unknown characteristics and phenomena associated with the planet's atmosphere and the surfaces of its satellites" Words missing.
• "Some have also advocated" - weasel wording. Needs at least a citation.
• "NASA has projected a possible attempt in the 2040s timeframe" - wordy, awkward.

Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've given this article a general copyedit, but I can't help with the line about the imaging photo polarimeter, as the source itself does not go into any detail. Serendi^podous 08:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OK

I think the continuing problems have been resolved. Let me know what else needs to be done. Serendi^podous 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work, Serendipodous. The article looks vastly improved, and looks to me like it is now a Good Article - your Good Article, however, not the original editor's. Ricardiana (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---