Talk:Granat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Good article Granat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 23, 2007.
December 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article contains material that originally came from a NASA website or printed source. According to their site usage guidelines, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted".
For more information, please review NASA's use guidelines.


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: See comments below.
2. Factually accurate?: Yes, but see comments below
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
4. Neutral point of view?: No problem
5. Article stability? Stable
6. Images?: Ok

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Ruslik (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

1) Please, write cm2 instead of cm2. It does not look good. Please, also fix other super/subscripts, i.e. "5 x 10-8 - 5 x 10-7".

2) 'Launch and orbit' section says nothing about the ultimate fate of Granat. Judging from the table (perigee) it reentered earth's atmosphere sometime after 1 June 1999. I think, this fact should be mentioned in the text.


3) Parameteres of SIGMA telescope given in different sources are not the same. I think the values from ref5 should be used (not from NASA).

4) The ATS-S instrument is not an imaging telescope. However in the current subsection this fact is not made clear. The reader can only guess that it is not imaging from the lack of information about resolution.

5) The article has too few citations. Section 'Spacecraft' does have them at all. This should be fixed (including infobox). At least every paragraph should have a citation.

6) Many references are naked weblinks. I think titles, authors, publishers, dates of publications need to be provided.

7) The lead should mention the names of all seven instruments, not only WATCH.

Ruslik (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the pointers. I'm gona keep a list of whats done/needs to be done here.
1) Done
2) I found a source [here|[1]] that indicates that it was deorbited on July 25 1999, which is in contradiction with the orbit table... I'll take another look at this later today or tomorrow UPDATE Done, problem solved, apparently the table is actually a list of orbital predictions made in 94 so the values are not exact. The other source was published after the observatory decayed so it is reliable.
3) Yes.. apparently there are contradictory sources on many aspects of the telescope.. I don´t have access to that article but I'll see if I can find additional french sources since I speak some french.
I think I resolved this issue myself. Ruslik (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
4) Will do UPDATE Done: Added description that it is an X-ray spectrometer
5) Already searching for more. I see you speak russian, could you please do a quick search on russian websites? The IKI website in particular seems to have a lot of info but translation programs are not reliable enough and Russian space telescopes is not a topic covered in any length in local brazilian libraries...
I added some citations. However russian websites do not have much information about Granat either. Ruslik (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
6) Done, altough the Nasa and IKI pages had no author information or publication dates
7) Will do UPDATE Done
Thats it so far, I should do some more work later tonight. Thx for the help RIP-Acer (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In its current form the article does satisfy GA Critaria, so I will promote it. For the future: when you wright the word "Done", put Y Done ({{done}}) template before it. It will make your answers more recognisable. Ruslik (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Thx for the help and for the promotion. I'm glad it's a GA now :D RIP-Acer (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yikes

With the best will in the world, I just noticed and fixed several errors in here. I have the good fortune[? a mixed blessing, to be sure] to have worked in gamma-ray astronomy for a number of years. It is not reasonable to expect a non-expert editor to be able to catch all of these, and I am grateful that there is a GRANAT article of such quality, and congratulate those responsible. Still, I hope we can get other experienced folks to help out with proofreading etc, as I have only given it a cursory once-over. Wwheaton (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see in the "Science results" section, "5 billion seconds", which cannot be correct as that is about 150 years. I changed it to 5 million, hoping that is right. This problem is also on the HEASARC web page. Wwheaton (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The Russian page (http://hea.iki.rssi.ru/GRANAT/sigma/sigma.html) confirms 5 million. Wwheaton (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)