Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

I believe this article is ready for nomination. It has recently been Peer Reviewed, and is now ready for the somewhat better peer review of FAC. I believe that it is an excellent article about this spacecraft. Tuvas 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak Object: Prose needs some cleanup. Examples:

• 'The launch was postponed from the previous day after discovering in the few minutes before liftoff that the computer software monitoring the fuel systems was malfunctioning.' Simpler would be 'The launch was postponed from the previous day due to a malfunction in the computer software monitoring the fuel systems.'
• MRO is inconsistanly italicized.
• 'The spacecraft entered orbit precisely as planned and on schedule. "Oh, look, it's right on the money!" shouted one NASA engineer. "Right on the money!"[6]' Not sure the quote is helping here... Second opinion?
• 'Aerobraking is currently being conducted to bring the orbiter to a lower, shorter-period orbit.' Better is 'The orbiter is currently aerobraking to achieve a lower, shorter-period orbit.'

Structure and detail of the article looks good to me, however. Themillofkeytone 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made the suggestions that you requested, except for the italiziting of MRO, to which I would like to question. What is the correct manner to express it? Without any kind of special font? I don't think bolding is the way to go, so it's either italicizing or leaving just MRO. Which is better? Tuvas 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the MOS, it appears that it shouldn't be italicized. Themillofkeytone 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS-T states that "Abbreviations of the above should also be italicized." Above it is a list, that includes ships. MRO isn't a ship in that context, but I believe that the abbreviation should be italicized. Whichever way though, they should be consistant, but I'll await your thoughts on it. Tuvas 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Apollo 8 is featured and is italicized, so I'd say go with that. Themillofkeytone 00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And now I've done it for ya. :-D Themillofkeytone 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Anything else need to be changed that you see? Tuvas 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support: Alright, I've gone through it again and done some more copyediting so now I have no problems supporting it. Themillofkeytone 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• The format 'Mb/s' almost certainly means 'Mbit/s'. You may wish to change it. This anomalous format was identified by the monobook tool that I describe elsewhere on this page. Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• This problem has been cleared up. Anything else? Tuvas 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This is mostly solid (and I love all those great pd-NASA images), but a copyedit is necessary. Quick examples:
  • "The HiRISE camera will be used to analyze Martian landforms, whereas CRISM and SHARAD will detect water, ice, and minerals on and below the surface...": whereas is the wrong word here.
  • "Data transfer to and from the spacecraft will occur faster than all previous interplanetary missions combined and allow it to serve as an important relay satellite for future missions.": Parallellism issues.
  • "In addition to the two Mars Exploration Rovers on the surface, the orbiter will be the sixth active Martian spacecraft - the largest number around any extraterrestrial planet in the human history of space exploration.": Somewhat of a dangling modifier.

There are a substantial number of small errors like this sprinkled through the article; someone needs to go through and clean those out before it will be ready. --Robth^Talk 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not an english major, quite the opposite (Engineering), so I don't see these kinds of things very well... But if you might be able to explain some of these things a bit more, I can probably fix them. Thanks! Tuvas 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We're working hard on this issue. I've gone through the first half of the article pretty boldly, but additional specific things to improve would be very beneficial. Thank you for your time on this!--will 09:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I like the changes that were made, and I went through and tweaked a few things myself. The one remaining issue I have is this: is it "MRO" or "the MRO"? Presumably one of these is correct (and I'm inclined to suspect that it's "the MRO", just based on what seems logical), but either way, someone should find out which it is and then go through and standardize our usage. That is, however, a minor issue, and assuming it gets dealt with, I now support. --Robth^Talk 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, doing a quick search of NASA's site, I saw MRO listed alot, but never THE MRO. Same with the internal HiRISE documentation. Still, I don't know if it's even worth changing, but, for the record, MRO is the correct way. Sometimes the MRO just sounds better... Still, probably is better to be consistant. Well, I'll make the change right away.Tuvas 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an update, I went ahead and made the changes, see if I missed anything... So, thus far we have 2 supports, no opposes. Don't think I've ever seen a FAC for so long with so few votes... Tuvas 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also finished going through the entire article to clean up grammar and flow.--(will)Koeppen 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Neutral Object. First, please eliminate the overview section—that's the purpose of a lead. Expand the shorter subsections if at all possible. Remove all bold text except that which appears in the first sentence of the lead. Fundamentally I'm not sure that this should be featured, since the mission has not yet been completed. There's no discussion of what the orbiter has accomplished, only what it hopes to accomplish. As a result, I'm not sure that this can satisfy the stability requirement, at least for now. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated the overview and disseminated the info into the article. I also removed the boldface per your suggestion. However, I would disagree with your assertion that the article is unstable. This article is about the spacecraft, its electronics, power systems, and instruments, NOT about the discoveries it may or not make. Text in the article about what it hopes to accomplish are there to outline its main purpose and objectives, not to serve as a sink for new information as it comes down the pipe (though some editors may try to do this). Even if MRO fails, it's original purpose and specs will not change, just the tense of the article will.--Koeppen 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Boldface is being discussed.--Koeppen 23:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Boldface is resolved (and removed), sorry bout that. -Ravedave 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there are spacecraft that are FA, first and formost Hubble. Hubble, by your statement, would not qualify. MRO made it to Mars, it's going to be there a while. But, nothing has really changed in it's status for the last 3 months, nor is it likely it will for the next 3 months. At least, in my mind, it is stable. I will also agree with Koeppen's statements with reguards to the Overview section, it's intent is to give information that doesn't belong in the intro, but is important to the article. Perhaps it needs a new name, but, not placing in the lead section. Tuvas 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... So you're saying that when this mission is completed, most of the findings of this spacecraft will be added to articles like Mars? I guess that makes sense... and even if a section was added to this after the fact, I suppose that wouldn't really be "instability". Good job, you guys are persuasive ;-). Thanks for dropping the overview section. As for other issues, is there any way to expand the subsections "CRISM", "Attitude Determination" and "Telecommunications system"? They're rather short. And could the external links be pruned somewhat? Some of them seem rather unnecessary (Slashdot?). I'm not sure that for example the CRISM link should be here, since CRISM has its own article. Switching to neutral for now; will review again. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

CRISM could have more information, but as it has it's own article, I don't know if it's really appropriate to put that much more. It's a basic overview as to what it does. I'll see if I can add a bit more. As for the Attitude Determination and Telecomuncations systems, well, I'll work on it right now. I'll also take a look at the links, to make sure that all of them are actually useful. Any that aren't, I'll remove. Tuvas 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. It's a tough balance; having the right amount of information with each subsection. These are on the short side, but they're not excessively short. The external links look better. One final thing—on most monitors, that infobox runs into the launch image, causing the text in the first heading to get pushed down, which leaves a white gap. Rearranging the images would be helpful. Switching to support. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object. The article lacks of any information prior to the launch of the spacecraft (original idea, original goals, funding, problems that occured during construction...). Plus could you create a section that describes MRO's goals, future expectations and expected discoveries separated from the "Equipment" section. CG 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed one section to "Mission Objectives" to highlight it and created a standalone "Instruments" section. We've also started a section on the talk page to acquire information prior to launch but are still working on it. ("Unfortunately" MRO was pretty smooth sailing from being selected to being built so there's not much in the way public or exciting information, but it's a good suggestion.)--Will.i.am 22:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call on the lack of the history section. I've dug up some sources, and posted at least a brief history of the spacecraft, but, there isn't a whole lot to say. I'll work on expanding it a bit more. Tuvas 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. Here are examples.
  • "attained Martian orbit on 10 March 2006"—a bit grand; why not "and has been in Martian orbit since 10 March 2006"? The "aerobraking" thing looks temporary: will someone update it when it achieves a lower orbit?
  • Is "additionally" necessary?
  • Why is "MRO" italicised?
  • "Future" occurs twice with doubtful purpose: can you pave the way for something in the past? Would you search for past landing sites?
  • Transferring data faster than all previous missions combined: what exactly does this mean? Do you add up the data transfer rates of all previous missions and compare? Unclear.
  • No hyphen after an -ly word.
  • Thought I'd leave it at the lead, but then the second sentence of the next section contains a mysterious word: "survance".

This is not good enough. Tony 09:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed all of the changes you mentioned, except for the attained martion orbit, I believe that is how it should read. Sorry, I guess I can't spell... As to why MRO is italicized, see further up on the proposal. Aerobraking will last for the next 2 and a half months, and yes, it will be updated, within the same day as it's completion (I hope even faster than that). Will look for more such phrases, thanks for the extra eyes though. Tuvas 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

But but but ... have you networked with other like-minded WPians to find copy-editors to massage the whole text? My examples above are to demonstrate that this is necessary. (PS its versus it's is a pain in English—counterintuitive, even—but once learnt, never forgotten.) Tony 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have time and have read through the article, why not be bold?--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain a few things. The lead section has been constantly reformed, to try and raise it's status, and a few errors were appearently left in. The first two paragraphs of the history section are brand new, again, to meet the requirements of a FA. During that process, some errors were left. However, most of the article has been much more stable, and doesn't have these problems. Feel free to try and find these types of problems withing the body of the article, I doubt you'll find as many. Tuvas 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

After having seen the recent changes from Will.i.am, I can see there was more than I thought as for typos and such in the main article. Still, they seem to be largely fixed up. Tuvas 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - the content is great, but I can't see the merit in featuring this before the probe even started science operations. The article will surely change drastically when that happens, and the post-mission version of this article will certainly be very different to this version. I think that as the article is clearly not in a finished, stable state (even though right now it might not change much from day to day), now is not the time to feature it. Style concerns, though, are that I noticed a couple of spelling errors (acheive in the intro, for example), and quite a few section headings are incorrectly capitalised - they take normal sentence case. Worldtraveller 08:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the discussion above per Spangineer (if you have already and still disagree, it's fine). The article may not be in a finished state (that's why we're here with "like-minded WPians"), but it will not (or at least should not) significantly change with the science discoveries. Even finding intelligent alien grammaticians on Mars will only merit a bullet point in THIS article and will not revise the goals, purpose, or internal workings of the satellite. And if the science is so incredibly groundbreaking than it deserves its own article and shouldn't be on par with the launch information anyway. None of the Mars spacecraft articles contain extensive science information, and I don't believe this one should either.--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the heading capitalizations and all the typos my friend Word and I could find.--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree, still, I'm afraid - you drew an analogy to Hubble, and I see your point but I think this is like having an article about Hubble before it began science operations. Think of what became clear after that - the mirror problem, the fix, the HDF, the HUDF, all the stunning images, ground-breaking results, etc etc. Before it started imaging, very little was known about how it would perform, and its article, had it existed then, would have changed enormously.

I also disagree that the results shouldn't be included in the probe article. Hubble's article discusses the most important results from it. All probes are designed to find out something new, so what they find out, or don't find out, should certainly be reported in their article.

Given that the probe might yet crash, fail, make groundbreaking discoveries or raise significant new questions, I just don't think the article can be considered anywhere near finished yet, nive as it is in its current state. Worldtraveller 11:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, those are all good points. My last shot on this and then I'll give in.... The MER rover teams did not put out a scientific press conference until a full two months after they landed. Their first papers in Science were not published until 1.5 years later. MRO will not exit aerobraking for another 4 months and, using MER as a model, we should be seeing published science results to add to the article in about 2 years. (I'll grant you some pretty pictures off the HiRISE website in 5 or 6 months, but none will have published science attached to them). If MRO does crash or instruments fail post-November (which I think is extremely unlikely at this stage) it could add to the article, hopefully it would be done so in the spirit of a GA if not an FA.--Will.i.am 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: NASA's website for MER had 1.7 billion hits in the first week they were on the ground. It would be great to have not just a good, but a GREAT article on a public spacecraft for people interested in knowing more about it. That's not a reason to force it to be an FA if it's not good enough, but that's why we're here — to try to get it to the necessary quality.--Will.i.am 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just explain quite a few of these points. First of all, it's highly unlikely that the probe will simply crash as is right now, no mission to another planet has acheived orbit around a planet and then crashed, from any country. All of the instruments have been tested, except SHARAD, and all are working perfectly. I would expect the first scientific research press releases perhaps around the begining of next year, and not earlier. MRO actually will end aerobraking in about 2 and a half months, followed by a brief period of time known as the transition phase. PSP will begin in November, and until that time, there will be very little possible changes to the article, except mentioning that it has ended aerobraking. Your logic about groundbraking discoveries, raising signifigant new questions, or crashing can wholy be applied to the Hubble article just as easily as with MRO. Tuvas 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object Just a tad too many images I think, to be encyclopedic. Think of eliminating those that aren't really, really needed. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)