Talk:Interferometric synthetic-aperture radar

Interferometric synthetic-aperture radar was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 30, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 7, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earthquakes Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The application-list should be expanded to cover the usefulness of InSAR coherence in land-cover mapping, forestry and agricultural applications etc. 192.171.5.126 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an area I know much about, but feel free to add it in yourself! Eve 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007 major expansion

I've just started a draft attempt to expand InSAR from a stub into a proper article. I'm only playing with structures and ideas at the moment, so I'm doing it in my sandbox out of everyone's way. If anyone else is already working on something similar, please give me a shout and we can combine them. I'll update the page properly once I've got something that doesn't look a half-completed mess, so everyone can start working on it. In the meantime please do leave me comments and feedback (especially on the suggested structure) on my talk page.
Cheers, Eve 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its now vaguely assembled together as an article, so I've posted it here now. It isn't by any means finished, it needs some additions and a lot of polish. But I think its reached the stage where it makes enough sense as it stands for people who happen upon it not to get completely confused, and where more input from other editors is needed. In particular lots and lots of feedback. I've put my to-do list for the article below, feel free to add things, do things on it, take things off it etc. as you think necessary (or ignore it completely if you prefer). But I'm also after more holistic comments and edits too, as well as nitpicks and formatting - is it too long? Are any sections confusing? Have I pitched the level of detail right or is it too academic? Eve 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List

Feel free to do things (and remove them from the list), add things you'd like me to do etc.

~~Look at which sections need more references~~
Put more in Data Sources section about Airborne (I don't know much about this)
Add more detail to the PS section
More about topo applications?
~~Standardise formatting of references, and check against guidelines~~
~~Find more introductory-level items for Further Reading~~
~~Find some pictures~~

GA Review

This isn't a bad article, but it has some problems that keep it from GA:

The lead is not intelligible to the layman. The topic itself is a difficult term, so a clear, low-jargon explanation is needed in order to make it accessible. The current explanation fails to explain.

Severe lack of references in the first half or so. Inconsistent referencing after that, using both links and >ref< tags.

Between the extreme difficulty and lack of referencing, this just isn't yet at GA level. I think it can be made so without too much effort - but isn't yet. Sorry.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the feedback, and for the very quick reply. I'll have a go at the intro, and try and make it simpler. With regards to the references, I was trying to follow the scientific citation guidelines, in particular the section on uncontroversial knowledge, but I guess maybe that was designed for shorter articles. The problem is, that the material the seemingly unreferenced sections is general knowledge about the subject, rather than coming from one particular source. It is all covered by the three refs cited in the lead (so it's clearly not OR), but I'm not sure how to reference it all, other than citing the same three or four references repeatedly, or searching for more obscure sources covering the same things to add an illusion of variety... As far as I can see, the only places links are used instead of ref tags are for the software sites, but I guess these should really be at the end as external links. I'll have a look at it. Thanks again for the useful feedback! Eve 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general suggestion is to just put one ref at the end of uncontroversial paragraphs that covers all the information, if that helps. Use the same ref(s) if it covers the information. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interferometric synthetic-aperture radar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521090818/http://www.eomd.esa.int/booklets/booklet183.asp to http://www.eomd.esa.int/booklets/booklet183.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]