Talk:NASA/GA2

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

Nominator: 13:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Earwig flags multiple issues:
 * Source: "NASA has determined that the next opportunity to propose for the fifth round of New Frontiers missions will occur no later than the fall of 2024. Missions in NASA’s New Frontiers Program tackle specific solar system exploration goals identified as top priorities by the planetary science community. The strategy is to explore the solar system with medium-class spacecraft missions that conduct high-science-return investigations that add to our understanding of the solar system." Article: "NASA has determined that the next opportunity to propose for the fifth round of New Frontiers missions will occur no later than the fall of 2024. Missions in NASA's New Frontiers Program tackle specific Solar System exploration goals identified as top priorities by the planetary science community. Exploring the Solar System with medium-class spacecraft missions that conduct high-science-return investigations is NASA's strategy to further understand the Solar System."  See WP:CLOP; this needs to be rephrased in your own words.
 * Source: "NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced at the end of a “State of NASA” speech at NASA Headquarters June 2 that the DAVINCI+ and VERITAS missions will launch to Venus in the late 2020s, having beat out competing proposals for missions to Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io and Neptune’s large moon Triton that were also selected as finalists in early 2020." Article: "NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced on June 2, 2021, that the DAVINCI+ and VERITAS missions were selected to launch to Venus in the late 2020s, having beat out competing proposals for missions to Jupiter's volcanic moon Io and Neptune's large moon Triton that were also selected as Discovery program finalists in early 2020".  Same issue.
 * Source: "The space agency would bring a scientific perspective to efforts already underway by the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to make sense of dozens of such sightings, Thomas Zurbuchen, the head of NASA’s science mission directorate, said during a speech before the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. He said it was “high-risk, high-impact” research that the space agency should not shy away from, even if it is a controversial field of study." Article: "Zurbuchen said the space agency would bring a scientific perspective to efforts already underway by the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to make sense of dozens of such sightings. He said it was "high-risk, high-impact" research that the space agency should not shy away from, even if it is a controversial field of study."  Same issue.
 * Source: "NASA's Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) Program oversees the life cycle of NASA’s Earth science data—from acquisition through processing and distribution. The primary goal of ESDS is to maximize the scientific return from NASA's missions and experiments for research and applied scientists, decision makers, and society at large." Article: "NASA also maintains the Earth Science Data Systems (ESDS) program to oversee the life cycle of NASA's Earth science data — from acquisition through processing and distribution. The primary goal of ESDS is to maximize the scientific return from NASA's missions and experiments for research and applied scientists, decision makers, and society at large." Same problem.

Unfortunately this is a quick fail; I'm sorry about this, but at least you've only been waiting a week for a review. Four of the first six sources checked by Earwig have text taken directly from the source article. Please take a look at WP:CLOP, which explains what needs to be done to resolve problems like this -- essentially, the material has to be written in such a way that it no longer seems to be a slight rewording of the original text.

I would also suggest that you run Earwig yourself and make sure it comes up clean -- you'll see there that it flags some sources, such as this, as possible copyvios, but that one is actually fine as all that's taken from it is various proper names and titles. You have to check the individual "compare" links to make sure those are all clean.

I might also suggest you look at the length of the article -- it's extremely long as it stands. This is not really a GA criterion, just a general comment on article usefulness. Are there possibly paragraphs which could be moved to sub-articles, per summary style? That would allow you to shorten this article. Best of luck with this; if/when you renominate I will try to pick it up again for a review if it sits in the queue for a long time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the helpful feedback @Mike Christie. I think I was quite ambitious with taking on such a large article as my first GA nom. I think I will first focus on smaller articles first as my first GAs. I might try to improve this one in the future though!  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)