Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Hi. I peer reviewed this article because an editor wished to take it to FAC. In course of the peer review, I discovered major problems with the use of sources. These are the problems I found:


 * Note 1. Source does not give 9.2 figure.
 * It gives the rounded value to 9 km/s . n
 * I see you've changed the text to "about 9 km/s." Good. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 5. Dead link - needs to be removed and another source found.
 * ❌ Still needs another source. This is not esoteric info and there are other sources that give it, so there's no reason to have a dead link. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * done


 * Note 6 - a. Cites information only partially given on website. Figure of 570,000 not given in source.
 * You've fixed this. Good. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 6 - b. Source does not even mention Thebe.
 * ❌ Changed, but now the note is given as a citation for the statement about Adrastea and Metis, neither of which are mentioned in the source. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * done


 * Note 6 - c. Source does not even mention Europa. Wording and statements appear to be taken from uncited website.
 * No note 6 - c in current article. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC) -- Source now given (note 12) does contain cited info. Ricardiana (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 10. Link didn't work for me.
 * Fine now. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 14. Source does not even mention Himalia or Elara.
 * OK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 17. Source does not even mention space debris.
 * OK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 21 - a. Source does not even mention Amalthea or Comet Shoemaker-Levey 9!
 * ❌ Your source for Comet S-L is OK. However, your info about Amalthea and the eight-year study beginning in the 1990s is now cited to an article from 1892!! That's completely unacceptable. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ~ see note 27 in this version: Ricardiana (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * done


 * Note 21 - b. Source does not mention Europa.
 * they actually do.
 * It does now. The version here didn't. Ricardiana (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 21 - c. Citation is to this statement: "Major scientific results of the Galileo mission include" - followed by a number of findings not mentioned in your source.
 * OK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note 23. Does not mention wind - at all!
 * ❌ I clicked through every tab on the cited web page and searched for wind. "Wind" came up 0 of 0 times on each tab. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that is because the website got updated from when this was a GAN. Nergaal (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * added a new ref. n


 * Note 30. Source doesn't say anything about funding, or competition for funding; it only lists other projects. Your conclusion is original research, which is not acceptable.
 * ❌ Nothing's changed here. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * removed statement


 * Note 31. Source does not mention Ganymede or proposed Ganymede orbiter.
 * ❌ PDF source does mention the orbiter, but appears to be someone's PowerPoint presentation - not a reliable source. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the reference is entiteled "OPF Study Team (2008-08-28). "Outer Planet Flagship Mission: Briefing to the OPAG Steering Committee" The sentence discusses a proposal which is hosted under these guys, and you are saying that their proposal is not reliable? If I am proposing you to stop being a useless/careless GAR reviewer would that make the proposal unrelable? Nergaal (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, stop with the personal attacks, please. I know the PowerPoint is hosted on a .edu site, but that doesn't impress me. It's not like this is cutting edge info that only these people know about it - it's readily available - see, for example. Ricardiana (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * added a nasa ref

Because of the unacceptable use of sources, I believe that this article fails Criterion 2, that articles be factually accurate and verifiable. Ricardiana (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

asides from the last three, most of the issues should be fixed now. the latter 3 are websites about future planned missions, websites which seem to have been updated/trimmed since the GAN. Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then they need to be replaced. In any case, there are still issues, most notably citing information about the late twentieth-century to a late nineteenth-century source. I'm delisting this as a Good Article. Feel free to nominate it again when these issues are resolved. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wohoo! I don't quite understand exactly how is this supposed to work. I have made an initial reply a couple of days ago and your reply is time is up? You should better go back and read the instructions for GAR and you will see that #4 says "Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The template can be used for this purpose, by placing ArticleName has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. on talk pages." Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You had time to respond, as evidenced by the fact that you did, repeatedly - just inadequately. I mean, come on - adding a source from the nineteenth century to "cite" information about the 1990s? I did notify both you and the GA reviewer, as you well know, or would if you had checked. The article is delisted. Now that I look at it, yes, a week is suggested, which I admit I didn't notice before, but your attitude, coupled with "fixes" to the article that simply repeat the same problems, are not encouraging. Feel free to re-nominate the article, as I said. Ricardiana (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I just misread the sentence and I though it refers to the discovery of the satellite - which is what the reference would have cited. You probably need to check on Assume good faith, or "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia", before you haste yourself into making conclusions. Nergaal (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I assumed bad faith. I simply said that your source doesn't contain the information you say it did. I don't really care why that is; it just is. Ricardiana (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite your incivility, you have until the 26th. Ricardiana (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly out of your reach so I think it is probably better if this gets moved from an individual reassessment to a community one. And by the way, stepping on other user's toes is also a form of incivility. Nergaal (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Did you notice that I reverted the delisting, per your request? Perhaps not. In any case, as we obviously disagree, I have put the article up for community re-assessment, as you wish. Ricardiana (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)