Talk:CryoSat-2

CryoSat-2 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 23, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 4, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a surgeon carried out an endoscopy on the CryoSat-2 satellite after a problem was found during final preparations for launch?

The article contains orbital elements which are automatically updated by a bot. Updates usually occur on alternate Saturdays.
For more details, please see Template:Orbit.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:CryoSat-2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it (if necessary). If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached.

"Construction of the original spacecraft was completed in August 2004, and following testing the spacecraft was shipped to the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in August 2005; arriving on 1 September." The use of the semicolon doesn't appear correct here, perhaps just break it up as "Construction of the original spacecraft was completed in August 2004. Following testing, the spacecraft was shipped to the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in August 2005 and arrived on 1 September."
Done --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It reentered over the Arctic Ocean, North of Greenland." Was the first CyroSat destroyed, sunk, re-salvaged, etc.?
Done It probably disintegrated during reentry, however its exact fate is unknown. I have changed it to "was lost". --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...to determine how factors such as snow could affect its readings." When stating "factors", it would be beneficial to list more than one factor (snow). For example, "how factors such as snow and sea-ice thickness could affect its readings"
Done I've reworded the sentence and removed the word "factors". It would have been confusing to list the ice thickness as affecting its readings in the same way since it is an objective not a problem. --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"completed by mid September" -> "completed by mid-September"
Done --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Dnepr rocket assigned to launch CryoSat-2 arrived at the Baikonur Cosmodrome by train on 29 December 2009." Train doesn't need to be linked.
Done --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to this, a practice countdown was scheduled for 19 February.[35] This was not conducted..." Reword one of the "this" (one of "these" I guess would be the proper terminology...).
Done --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"CryoSat-2 will be used to study the Earth's polar ice caps..." "will be", it's already launched and working, so this should be reworded. Fix the other occurrences in the section.
Done, I think. --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A second instrument, Doppler Orbit and Radio Positioning Integration by Satellite," That doesn't need to be bolded.
Done --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The spacecraft is currently undergoing on-orbit testing and commissioning, a phase which is expected to last until six months after launch." Normally, I wouldn't recommend the use of "currently", but since the initial six months detail is tacked on, that works. However, make sure this is updated next month when the six months are over.
Can't really check anything off here, but as soon as ESA announce that it is complete then I will update it. --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any external links that readers can look to?
Not done I believe that all such sites are already linked elsewhere in the article, either as references or in the website field of the infobox. Per WP:EL, "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." --G W… 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altogether, this article was informative on the topic and is well-sourced. Most of the above issues shouldn't be too difficult to address, but if you have any questions on them, please let me know. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be allowed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

Good job with addressing the above issues. I believe the article meets the GA criteria and have passed the article. I would recommend using WebCite to archive all of the citations to prevent link rot in the future. Keep an eye out for updates on the satellite and ensure the article continues to be maintained to keep its GA status.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. If you are new to reviewing and want to familiarize yourself with the process, study the GA criteria, look at other editors' reviews, and leave any questions you have at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations if you need feedback while performing a review.

Keep up the good work, and I encourage you to continue to bring articles up to good article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I'll try and archive the links in the near future. --G W… 08:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Lack of consensus. Proposal too old. Last vote was almost two & a half years ago. A new merger proposal taking into consideration the present situation and facts can be started if required. Votes - 1 Support, 1 Oppose and 0 Neutral. - Jayadevp13 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any difference between the Cryostat program and the Cryostat-2 orbiter. When the mission was launched by ESA, the planned orbiter was just called CryoSat, the -1 prefix was only applied when the initial launch had failed. CryoSat-2 is largely equivalent, with only some minor updates. The contents describing the scientific background of the mission in both articles are overlapping, even the instruments are covered twice. I was also thinking about merging CryoSat-1 as well, but I fear this one has to be kept as independent article (mostly due to its infobox). Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - Regardless of its current content, the programme article should cover the background, brief details on both satellites, and a detailed description of the scientific results of the programme, whilst the individual satellite articles should cover the specific technical details of the spacecraft and their missions, concentrating on the spacecraft themselves, much like this one does at the moment. Both spacecraft are individually notable. --G W… 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to make my point clearer): Well, I just could not find any reference that there still is something like the CryoSat program at all. To my knowledge, the whole project was renamed CryoSat-2 when the initial mission failed (which was dubbed CryoSat-1 only afterwards). Therefore, it is confusing to have three articles, because two would be sufficient: CryoSat=CryoSat-1 and CryoSat-2. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge - It appears there was never intended to be more than one Cryosat, so it does seem odd to have an article for the program as well as the satellite. It's like having an article for the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter program, as well as an article for the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft. It makes more sense to put the program information in the satellite's article; the failed CryoSat-1 is linked in the "background" section, which seems sufficient. Mlm42 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CryoSat-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]