Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exploration of Jupiter

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. After a long GAR with much input from reviewers, and improvements and expansion by multiple editors, there seems to be consensus that the original case to delist is now moot. Articles can be reassessed at any time. Geometry guy 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sounds good; thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Most of the citing issues listed there should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not added any secondary sources beyond a website or two, or changed the lead. Ricardiana (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha

[edit]

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.

Coverage
[edit]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Presentation
[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
went through a bunch
  •  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)[reply]
improved a few instances. n
Not all done. Hint: text search. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tried that. all should be fixed now. Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
How is the sentence now? Nergaal (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"due to the harsh charged-particle environment that is found around Jupiter (for a detailed explanation see Magnetosphere of Jupiter)"
What's wrong with keeping an accurate scientific terminology? Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Technical requirements
[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Re "gravity assists through planetary flybys can sometimes be used to reduce the energy required at launch":
I rephrased it so sound it more clear. Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)":
Spelled out 8. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • The ref to Galileo FAQ - Navigation should link to the appropriate section of the FAQ. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same ref does not support "albeit at the cost of a significantly longer flight duration". --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. 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)[reply]
Pioneer program (1973 and 1974)
[edit]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Voyager program (1979)
[edit]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
added note
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)[reply]
later sections
[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Images
[edit]
switched to a better one. Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
? n
done now? Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
replaced with more representative ones. Nergaal (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link checker shows some problems:

done
That link died only a few weeks ago; fixed. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
checked. n
Lead
[edit]

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

Verdict
[edit]
The sourcing issues there have been solved, but the reviewer declined to rereview those issues. Nergaal (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
←the sourcing points should be solved, see here: Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but doesn't address Cirt's and Philcha's comments. Ricardiana (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, and one more thing: the article went from 25.4 to 32.3k [1]. 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)[reply]
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" [2] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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 [3], 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)[reply]

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. Serendipodous 08:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Does that mean we can close the GAR? This article has been included as part of a Feature Topic Candidate and the FT is awaiting the resolution of this GAR. ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close it tonight, but given the complex and extensive nature of this reassessment, I wanted to read through the article carefully myself first. In the process I found, by chance, one instance of plagiarism (I was not systematically checking sources). As the source (NASA) is not copyrighted and the instance was not long, this may not be a GA issue. However, I'm not able to close this reassessment until the article has been carefully checked. I don't have time to do this tonight, and I would encourage article editors to help here in the hope that myself or another uninvolved editor will be able to close this overdue reassessment soon. Geometry guy 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a few more examples of plagiarism. A cursory examination of the sources reveals no more, though I lack access to full scientific papers so I can't verify whether they were plagiarised or not. Serendipodous 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't spot any further problems, only a couple of places where a citation or two would be helpful. This GAR looks closeable to me now. Geometry guy 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Exploration_of_Jupiter/1&oldid=1142598289"