Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galileo project/archive1

Galileo project

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a robotic space mission to Jupiter. This article is about the mission; there is a separate article about the spacecraft itself. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

UC
Very much coming in as a non-expert here, but it looks like a cracking article and at least gives me the illusion that I can understand what is going on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : comma after 1989.
 * Comma added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : should this be gravitationally assisted flybys, as the first two words modify the third? I see no hits on Google Books for this precise phrasing.
 * It seems that "gravity assist flyby" is the correct scientific term, so standardised on that. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : suggest The spacecraft launched to clarify that "it" isn't strictly the programme.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the moon Dactyl rate a (red)link?
 * Sure. As it happen the link is blue. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : any way to avoid the slightly clunky repetition of were recorded?
 * Sure. Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Suggest linking "encounter", as it has a more specific meaning in this context than its everyday loose one.
 * Added a link to the Wiktionary entry (which I just created): "The period of a space mission during which it carries out its data-gathering objectives".
 * : the tenses are a bit confusing here. How much time has passed between the two sentences? I'd suggest something in the middle to the effect of "these took place on [date] and indicated..."
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : I'm not clear on the logic as to when names like Mariner and Voyager are italicised, but it seems to be inconsistent in this paragraph.
 * Consistently italicised. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : well, yes, but I suppose the problem was that they would wear out with age? Things simply becoming older isn't necessarily a problem.
 * Added "and possibly fail" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : is this quite true? For the first part, perhaps, but wasn't the point of the gravity assists that the overall mission would require less delta-v (and so less propellant) than a mission that didn't use them?
 * The onboard propellant is only used for inflight maneuvers, so gravity assist maneuvers would require more of them. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : I'm not sure I see the point of the however here -- what's being contrasted? It sounds like we've just discussed reasons why the IUS was a bad component for this mission, and are now about to discuss reasons why it was a good one: could that be made clearer and more explicit?
 * Reworded the paragraph, and got rid of the "however". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : a bit mealy-mouthed: better as Ames and the JPL decided...? Always better to show, not tell, that it was important, and we don't (in this paragraph at least) really set out why this made a difference.
 * The paragraph does explain: This allowed it to take high resolution images, but the functionality came at the cost of increased weight. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In which case, as we've shown, WP:PUFFERY et al would encourage us not to use the word important, but rather to let the facts speak for themselves. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : could we rework the double negative: something like "to launch a payload to Jupiter, the IUS needed to use a series of..."? I would also stick a full stop after additional speed and then do something like "Most engineers regarded the use of such maneuvers as..."
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The second, but not the first. I'm not sure what the "otherwise" at the start of the new sentence means: was there any scenario in which the IUS would be powerful enough to avoid using gravity assists? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A three-stage might have worked; "otherwise" refers to the two-stage IUS. I thought this was clear enough, but emphasised. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : in both cases, I find myself asking: [suggestions/votes] from whom?
 * Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : similarly: any idea whose decision that was?
 * Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : the Space Shuttle (like the battleship New Jersey) -- unless this is the HQRS norm? I'd also clarify something like "the STS-23 mission".
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : could be briefer simply as as to or even to.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : in this and similar sentences, if they actually did the thing suggested, it's better in the indicative: Lifting G. and the IUS required....
 * As explained further on, they did not do it. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : I'm not totally clear on the relationship between NASA and the USAF in this project. Had NASA contracted the Air Force?
 * As explained earlier, the USAF was in change of the two-stage IUS, NASA of the three-stage one.
 * : less verbose as the USAF intervened to save it from cancellation.
 * I fail to see the value, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : I know that brevity is important in a caption, but I don't think "got stuck" or a contraction are the right WP:TONE. Suggest "the antenna's motors stalled, preventing it from fully opening", or similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem was not with the motors, but with the antenna being stuck, probably vacuum welded in place. Re-worded to address the issue. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the revised : to me, that reads as if it was impossible for the antenna to open fully. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Simplified the caption to "the antenna could not extend" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think we have the same problem: it sounds as though the antenna wasn't extendable at all. How about "failed to extend", which makes clear that it should have done so? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Another few:

More to follow.
 * : it would be useful to know what these things are: perhaps clearer if we explain it by what the probe would or wouldn't do?
 * Added some explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : It's not a rule, as such, but most style guides would avoid starting a sentence with but. More importantly, if we do use but here, we're setting up some followup in which this additional weight prevented something from taking place, and that never comes, so the paragraph would read better with something like "Furthermore", "Additionally", or indeed nothing at all.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see a change here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Tried again. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All good now. UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : can we explain or link what a rated power level is?
 * I will see if I can dig up a source. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * After digging through various technical documents, I have added a footnote: "The rated power level (RPL) is the power at which an engine can be normally operated. In the case of the Space Shuttle, the specification called for 27,000 seconds operation at 100 percent of the RPL, or 14,000 seconds at 109 percent of the RPL, which was designated full power level (FPL)." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : grammatically, needs a comma before despite this, but then becomes quite a winding sentence. I would go with something like
 * Split sentence. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : per the ever-confusing MOS:PEOPLETITLES, we should decap director here.
 * De-capped. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : the optics are part of the spacecraft, aren't they? Suggest "and possibly other parts of the spacecraft", or even something like "other, more mission-critical parts of the spacecraft", "other parts of the spacecraft, particularly..."
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : not quite grammatical (what's the antecedent of those: grammatically, it should be reads, but you can't damage a read). The noun "reads" is also a little tricky to parse. Suggest "repeatedly reading data from a single data cell damaged the other data cells around it", or similar.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * : needs an endash, I think, as this is really "Shuttle plus Centaur" (compare Lee–Enfield or Mason–Dixon line) (MOS:DASH)
 * MOS:ENBETWEEN: Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the case here, though, as there's nothing called a "Shuttle-Centaur" (that is, a Centaur that is also a shuttle, as distinct from maybe a "Saucer-Centaur"). This is instead the example given of  <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We used a hyphen in the featured article, and it is used in the sources. The form with a solidus is also used in the sources. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading around, I can see the case for a hyphen: happy with this. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * UC ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Had been holding off while Roy concluded his review: thanks for the nudge. More below. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The section on Nuclear concerns seems very determined that there was no real reason why anyone should have been worried about the plutonium. Is this the consensus of the sources?
 * Yes, but the sources are written by experts, who tend to have much less fear of radioactive substances than the general public. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. Still, there are plenty of experts who have criticised the safety elements of other early-ish space missions and nuclear projects, so if none of them have really challenged the NASA narrative, I think WP:DUEWEIGHT is satisfied. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : the first bit of this attributes both figures, recognising that there's a possible debate here, but the second doesn't: it's cited to NASA, however, who certainly had a horse in this race, so I don't think we can present it as straightforward, disinterested fact. If nothing else, the figure here surely depends on the overall probability of a disaster?
 * Changed to reiterate that this was NASA's opinion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : could this be re-written in plainer English?
 * Been in the article since 2006 . Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : consistency advised under MOS:NUM
 * Changed to "1 in 2 million". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : not a common unit of measurement: can we contextualise that a bit? Would that be bad?
 * There is a link. The Three Mile Island accident released 2.5 million curies. Added a bit more from the risk assessment. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some hyphens in page ranges in the footnotes (I noticed on note 74).
 * These are not page ranges. Hyphens are okay. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note 73 is . That's a page range, surely? Ditto 72: . We also generally use pp. or pages for a range. If p. stands for something other than "page", I think that would be wise to clarify (e.g. "section P" or similar). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The document uses a page numbering system where pages have numbers like 2-4 and 4-18. In the text, this is documented by using the form p. 24 . Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Happy here, then: it looks wrong (and might lead to well-meaning editors like myself trying to change it), but it's correct. You could perhaps use the at parameter rather than p, which would drop the "p." -- as e.g. 2-23 is really sort-of an abbreviation for "part 2, page 23"? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : presumably they would hijack the trucks, rather than the spacecraft, as the latter wouldn't be very easy to drive.
 * Very well. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : while they were driving it? How did they know where to go?
 * Added "beforehand". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphenate as a compound modifier.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : any idea who these were?
 * the Christic Institute, the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice and the Foundation on Economic Trends. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : is that technical grounds? It sounds like they denied it on substantive grounds: technical, to me, means that the proper procedures had not been followed, and so the issue was not considered, whereas the court did consider the issues but, as most appeals do, only had to determine that the original decision had been made legally and reasonably, not that it had been correct.
 * The source says: "The rejection of the appeal, by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was based on technical grounds and was not a ruling on the merits of the case." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, we've got a contradiction here. If the reason for rejection was, as we've said, (emphasis mine), that is a ruling on the merits of the case (that they weren't sufficient). Is this all from the same source: could you perhaps quote a bit more to see if we can see what's happened here? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-worded to make it clearer that this was in the concurring opinion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : singular and hyphenate (cf. a two-mile queue, a five-dollar note and a four-mile run).
 * Added parameter to template. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : some inconsistency in the article about whether units are abbreviated or not.
 * : compound modifier: hyphenate.
 * I think it is correct without. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not per MOS:HYPHEN: <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and : as above, hyphenate.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : not quite grammatical (the antecedent of it is the spacecraft, but the spacecraft didn't necessitate the use of the dishes: its movement did). Secondly, who were the other users of the dishes?
 * Radio astronomers. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this in the article now? Would add if not. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : can we explain what this means?
 * Seems clear enough. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to me, I'm afraid, and it needs to be clear to readers who don't know much about astronomy, telemetry, and don't have an expert grasp of English. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added links. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : when was that?
 * In 1989-1990. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is a case for suspended hyphens, so.
 * Added hyphen. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : weak magnetic field, or weak centre?
 * Magnetic field. Added, although it makes the text harder to understand. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want it clearer, how about ? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphenate as a compound modifier.
 * Proper noun; sources do not hyphenate. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a proper noun: we're using the term for a thing that detects plasma waves. If we want to refer to a specific thing by the name of "plasma-wave detector", and so to make it a proper noun, we would need to capitalise, but we don't do that for other unique parts of a ship: the thrusters, the engines, the wings and so on are all lower-case. Sources may not hyphenate, but they may have their own house style, and don't have to follow the MoS: we do. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed. But I am not changing it elsewhere. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : the prevailing style here seems to be MDY, so I'd switch to that.
 * Yes, it uses mdy. God knows why, as all the sources use the normal format. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : I would cut both onlys as editorialising, possibly rephrasing slightly to e.g. "the time of the closest approach was within a second of what had been predicted".
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's up to the start of "Earth encounters": will be back once you've had a chance to look at this batch. I appreciate it's a lot: it's a big article that is saying a great deal and doing an admirable job of getting the nitty-gritty across while keeping it clear and engaging. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Marching on:


 * : you can probably guess this one: hyphenate (particularly useful here: it was the particles, not the detector, that were energetic).
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : should we include an imperial conversion here (mph/fps) as we have for most other measurements?
 * Added. The purpose of the conversions is to render historic measurements in the sources into metric. Converting metric to imperial serves no purpose other than looking consistent. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : there are other examples, but I'd advise consistency as to whether units are abbreviated or not (generally, per WP:NOTPAPER, I'd suggest not, but there's an argument for not writing out "kilometers" in full if the word is coming up several times in a sentence or paragraph).
 * MOS:UNITNAMES: "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use". Abbreviated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : is it possible to explain this a little, perhaps in a footnote -- what does ozone layer damage have to do with these things appearing earlier?
 * Just another experiment taking advantage of an instrumented spacecraft having an encounter with Earth. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not following: what I'm asking for here is an explanation of how follows from . It's clear enough that this was an abnormal observation, but not clear how it indicated damage to the ozone layer. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an atmospheric physicist, but added a one-sentence explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I read it, it sounds as though these clouds would cause the damage, rather than being a sign or consequence of it: could we make that a bit clearer, if so?
 * The text says: "The NIMS was employed to look for mesospheric clouds, which were thought to be caused by methane released by industrial processes. The water vapor in the clouds breaks down the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Normally the clouds are only seen in September or October, but Galileo was able to detect them in December, an indication of possible damage to Earth's ozone layer." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need the abbreviation of μmol/mol, as we don't ever use that unit again: on the other hand, glossing it to 'one part in a million' might be useful.
 * Removed the abbreviation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : another candidate for conversion.
 * Link Mare Serenitatis
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, : hyphenate.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is slightly murky: do we mean that the scan platform wasn't able to move (accelerate) as quickly as the scientists thought?
 * It was not able to accelerate (change speed) as fast as expected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thought so; would say it closer to that, then, as it's much clearer and conveys the same information. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : I think this should be was used to -- people designed the downlinks; the data didn't. No objection, but are we going for data as singular rather than plural?
 * I never use data in singular; I always use "datum". Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I quite like the abbreviation template on HGA, but why is it there and not on any other abbreviations?
 * Another editor asked for it, given that the abbreviation was defined long before in the text. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is probably the correct plural abbreviation (like LLB or pp. -- though I haven't seen a case where you decap the repeated initial), but it reads oddly: suggest perhaps spelling the abbreviation out on this occasion to avoid that?
 * Changed "a" to "s" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is a long sentence: it's pretty clear up to would have been. Suggest something like than that of the HGA would have been, as the HGA transmitted....
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this quote should be attributed in the text.
 * WP:INTEXT: " In-text attribution may need to be used with direct speech" but "should always be used for biased statements of opinion." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes -- I think the combination of the quote's inherently unverifiable nature (who can disprove what "it" looked like -- that's not an empirical statement) and its strong, slightly sardonic authorial voice mean that here it really does need to be attributed. From another angle, the primary reason to include the quote, rather than a bland statement of fact like "there was a possibility that the mission would not take place", is that it is cleverly and engagingly written, and therefore it seems unfair to benefit from the author's skill and effort here while not crediting them as fully as we could. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : the start of this sentence is verbose, and we should restate what "it" is in the new paragraph. Suggest "The VEEGA trajectory had not previously been considered because..."
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : high-priority
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would swap the centre and left moon images around: most readers will read the left-hand one first, and it's odd that the middle one clarifies that it's of the moon when that one doesn't.
 * Changed the captions instead. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hyphenate false-color mosaic, gravity-assist flyby, (in subheading), data-compression software, High-resolution images.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : I don't think we ever explain what CDS and CMOS mean. It's also been a while since we explained VEEGA: perhaps spelling it out, rewording it, or adding the abbreviation template would be helpful here.
 * Added definition of CDS, linked CMOS, added abbreviation template for VEEGA
 * Suggest wikilinking bits.
 * Already linked above. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : data were, I think. Likewise and, later,
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * a long sentence with lots of piled-up clauses: suggest splitting into at least two.
 * Split. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : earlier we wrote -- advise consistency.
 * Changed to "percent". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : can we rephrase a catastrophic origin to be clearer ("suggesting that the asteroid was formed when..."?)
 * Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : grammatically, it could be either Gaspra or the solar wind.
 * I think it is pretty obvious, but changed "it" to "Gaspra". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : could amend spontaneously for suddenly to be clear that this wasn't the result of human input?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : MOS:NUM would like "5 frames". Ditto
 * Changed "30" to "thirty". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : any idea of among whom -- just in the office, or nationwide?
 * Project members. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : we should be consistent as to whether Dactyloi is capitalised or not (it is in our article). You might also wish to use the English plural "Dactyls", as it's an easier jump from there to "Dactyl" for most readers.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : slightly grammatically ambiguous as to whether after which has "the Dactyloi", "Mount Ida" or "Crete" as its antecedent.
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is certainly clear, but a little clunking: can we polish it for prose elegance?
 * Polished. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : is the antecedent of 'it Dactyl or 243 Ida? Grammatically, the former is most intuitive, though meaning-wise I think we want the latter: suggest a rephrase.
 * Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this reads as a little bit pulp-journalism to me: is there any such thing as a usual opportunity in a mission that is inherently a one-off? I'd cut this sentence, personally, for tone.
 * Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : adjust to MDY.
 * We only need consensus to change the whole article to NASA dmy format. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean. At the moment, the dating system is inconsistent: elsewhere, we have, for example. Honestly, I'm willing to wear "NASA English" as a subset of AmerE that uses DMY dates, but we do need to pick one. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article currently uses mdy. I have changed the format of the dates in question. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : any idea of how far?
 * 238 million km. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : I'm not sure of the grammar here: the impact itself, by definition, lasted only a moment, but perhaps its traces persisted for longer?
 * Changed to "fireballs" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Still need to do the last bit: will get to that when I can. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, finishing off:


 * and following: not sure what the MoS is on this, but it's odd to mix standard-form and regular numeral notation: suggest "52 million miles", especially as we're not really in the sort of very big or very small numbers that really need SF.
 * I am fairly sure that it is MOS conformant, becuase it is generated by the conversion template, but dislike this form too. Just a matter of the correct incantation to get the outpuut right. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : I would clarify what this role was: we've just been talking about firing engines, which got me quite confused.
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : cut space?
 * Cut. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : could we give an actual measurement? This is good to get a feel, but I'm not sure many people would have a specific number in mind.
 * Usually you want the allegory. Added their approximate size. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : presumably, only when Ulysses encountered them; we should clarify that the existence of dust storms was unsurprising to the Galileo team.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : cut absolutely: something can't be only a little bit crucial.
 * Cut. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : grammatically if not logically, it's not clear what this is in the preceding sentence: suggest replacing with a noun.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : became stuck? Or did the engineers notice that it had been stuck for a while?
 * "it was stuck in rewind mode for 15 hours" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : clearer as "the probe's descent towards Jupiter" or similar.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Link Great Red Spot: isn't it the Great Red Spot, normally?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : purely for prose style, I think we need another verb after nearly: either exceeded again or a synonym.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ... because it would have taken too long for a signal to get there? Or had they just not added that feature? We later imply that it could, which means that we need some explanation for why it couldn't at this point.
 * Added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : awoke is perhaps a little anthropomorphic.
 * It is a technical term used in computer science. A sleep (command) suspends execution until it is woken by an alarm. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : ammonia-ice particles (that is, particles of ammonia ice), surely?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : by the same logic, endash after hydrosulphide. Is the British spelling of hydrosulphide intended? Sulfide is used elsewhere.
 * Changed to US spelling. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : first bar should be plural (cf. "1.5 to 2 metres")
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphenate: 1-bar
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)
 * : ever? Suggest making explicit if so ("yet attempted by any spacecraft"?).
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)
 * : I understand "heat shield", but "phenolic" is a tricky one: can we link it?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : grammatically, the antecedent of it should be the heat shield, but we presumably mean the probe as a whole.
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hypenate: upper-atmospheric.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : similarly, it should grammatically be the accelerometer.
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Link terminal velocity?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : full stop should go, as not a complete sentence.
 * Gone. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : at least to me, a wealth of information is a bit WP:PUFFERY and slightly too idiomatic/flowery. Suggest showing rather than telling by just getting to what they yielded.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : can we explain why this was a reasonable implication: presumably because Jupiter gets less energy from the Sun, being further away, yet somehow had faster winds, so the extra energy had to come from somewhere else?
 * Added a bit. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : as before, hyphenate ammonia-ice here.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : does this really need to be said? It would have been huge news to find out that Jupiter had a solid surface, but I can't see that anyone, either then or now, would be remotely thinking of it as a possibility.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . These two seem to go together, but are widely separated. Can we restructure to change that?
 * Restructured. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : the three gases need bracketing off with dashes, as they are noble gases.
 * Parenthesised. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : Not sure about the tone here: better and more formal as "However, it orbits more quickly..." (faster is an adjective, not an adverb, in formal writing).
 * More quickly is not used in formal writing, and Wikipedians deplore the use of "however". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that "more quickly" isn't used in formal writing? I've never heard that "rule", and a quick ping through Google Books and JSTOR finds it in plenty of prestigious books, academic journals and so on. I've also never come across a MoS or other prohibition on "However": it's used twice in this article already. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "However" is not prohited; it just falls under Manual of Style/Words to watch. And faster is an adverb as well as an adjective.


 * Recast the phrase in adjective/noun form. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for indulging me on this: your fix works perfectly. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : do we need the first of? Reads oddly to me, but that might be EngVar.
 * Reads okay to me. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * : could we (re)state how quickly Galileo went round?
 * Not really; each orbit was different. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Link Tvashtar Paterae on "Tvashtar Catena" in picture caption (and/or consider explaining/linking "catena"?)
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : didn't we earlier say that it couldn't do this?
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphen.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : a bit breathless (WP:PUFFERY) in tone for me.
 * : in nearly all circumstances, I would advise cutting very, and would continue to do so here.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : not sure this adds anything: I'd be more sympathetic if we could follow it with e.g. "because it only occurred once during the entire time-span of the mission" or something like that.
 * Added a bit. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphen.
 * Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : the "just"s, here (particularly) and elsewhere, read as editorialising to me.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : likewise the unfortunately -- and another hyphen needed in safe-mode event
 * Delered. Hyphenated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : lose the comma after Kivelson. "Convective" is redlinked: is Convection the intended target?
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : per MOS:IDIOM, I would advise rephrasing to something that more explicitly says that the volcano was not erupting (it might have been doing so without making much noise).
 * Both of the sources say: "Tvashtar was quiet". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They might, but they don't have to follow MOS:IDIOM: more to the point, if they use a creative idiom and we copy it wholesale when good alternatives exist, we're breaking (in a very small way) WP:COPYVIO. We're allowed to take the facts from sources; we can't take the creative expression unless we present it as a quotation and/or attribute. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not an idiom; it is a technical term. Linked to effusive eruption. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have the source in front of me, though I do have Google telling me that "Effusive eruptions are sometimes called 'quiet' eruptions". Is it absolutely unambiguous in the sources that the volcano was erupting, just not emitting a plume, other than the use of the word "quiet"? I'm not sure I can see in isolation that "the volcano was quiet" definitely means "the volcano was erupting effusively" rather than "the volcano was not erupting". <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources are online. Melzer (p. 254) says: "The Tvashtar volcano was quiet". This is sourced to NASA. which says: "When Galileo sped past Io's north pole on August 6, scientists were watching for activity from a polar volcano named Tvashtar, which had been spewing a plume several hundred km high only seven months earlier. But Tvashtar was quiet." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Our article on Tvashtar cites this source, which makes it clear the volvcano was still erupting. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does: in fact, I see, which says to me that it had finished. It does say that the volcano was still active, but that's not the same thing. Have I missed something on that page? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "The Galileo spacecraft caught Io in the act of an active volcanic eruption on Februrary 22, 2000. Tvashtar Catena is a chain of calderas, collapse pits formed by volcanic eruptions. The active site of the eruption is visible on the left edge of the image, where infrared imaging sees the glow of a hot lava flow more than 60 kilometers long."  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Great: cite that and we're golden. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : see comments on sulphur/sulfur above.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphen, and consider rephrasing marred as editoralising.
 * I think is is okay. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : I'd consider cutting the first bit: this is already a very long article and section, and we surely take as read that they didn't sit back while their machine was broken?
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : in the vein of some comments above, I'd cut still.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphenate.
 * Hyphenated.
 * : at a distance up to is more grammatical, I think. Not sure we need the quote marks: "a grandfather clock is defined as an expensive one in a tall wooden box" works fine.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : comma after (346 mi).
 * Changed as suggested.
 * : date format is inconsistent with the rest of the article.
 * Changed to mdy dates. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : clearer if we use dashes or brackets for "E12 through E19".
 * Changed to parentheses. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : the MoS discourages "we" in this kind of construction: suggest "argued that the surface of Europa must only be about 10 million years old, assuming..."
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : too many thes here.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : ambiguous: suggest "salts of magnesium and of sodium" or "magnesium- and sodium-based salts"
 * Seems okay as it is. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I read it, the most obvious interpretation is that it contained magnesium, which I don't think is true or intended. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to "magnesium- and sodium-based salts" but note that "base" has the technical meaning of "cation" in this context. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : that's rather below what most of us would call "chilly" (indeed, it's almost "big coat weather" up here): given the following sentence, these words can go with no loss.
 * Deleted. (It's not very warm here either.) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : the chronology here seems important, but I have totally lost any sense of when this happened, or how long it went on for. Did this happen during the span of the mission itself? If not, suggest moving to a later section.
 * The article has switched from chronological to locational order, as Galileo returns to each Moon several times. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We are inconsistent about whether it's Canberra ( or the Canberra (.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : does this really need all four citations?
 * Deleted one. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : sulphide vs sulfide again.
 * Already corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : words for said are tricky, but felt here could perhaps cast the implication that she was working on intuition or vibes rather than professional knowledge and experience.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : best without a comma, as both alternatives are short phrases.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : sulphides again.
 * Already corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : if we just said "ice", I don't think many readers would assume it was anything else. I think the link to ice is an overlink.
 * Normally yes, but all mentions so far have been of ammonia icx. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphenate tape-recorder. On another note, there seems to be an extra line break after this paragraph.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : was ("none" = "not one": "not one of them was sighted...")
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : something is up with the formatting here.
 * No idea what this is abvout. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The bit of wikitext with the square brackets at the end displays on the page -- you'll find it with ctrl-f. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : Even is editorialising, but do I assume correctly that Algol was the previously brightest known eclipsing binary?
 * Delta Velorum is the brightest-known eclipsing binary, although Algol has a deeper minimum and is easier to observe visually. DEleted "even". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is a good explanation of the GEM and GMM, which would have been much better before we got into those two moons -- we were using both of those terms quite freely, and I had rather little idea of exactly what and when we were talking about. Suggest restructuring so that this "Mission extension" section comes before what happened after the mission extension.
 * MOved section up. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this is quite strongly editorial, and needs to be rephrased to have a more neutral authorial voice.
 * Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It needs a fairly major rework: casts the strong implication that Congress were being wasteful; similarly,  casts them as fools, unable to see that the project had not in fact been fully funded. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The project had been fully funded. NASA deliberately kept the price tag low in order to get funding in the first place, and there was a real possibility of the spacecraft failing before funds ran out. Deleted "it thought". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That bit is better, but is still a problem. I'd be happier if someone (ideally within Congress) expressed this sentiment at the time, so we could say "although Rep. Stevenson of Ohio gave a speech in which she said...", "despite an open letter from 25 scientists arguing that it was..." or something like that. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : endash, not hyphen, needed here.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this one needs a look. Firstly, whether or not is a tautology: whether is better. Secondly, as phrased, it implies that Mars has already become contaminated by microorganisms from Earth.
 * Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : this doesn't seem to be relevant here, as we don't say that anyone proposed it for Galileo.
 * Keep reading. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Still don't see it: I see, but it sounds like this is "new" relative to the 99.9% standard adopted in 1964. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the numbered list in "Major findings" would be better and more MoS-friendly in prose.
 * I think it is okay. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : endash, not hyphen.
 * Endashes are not being used for anything but page ranges. They cause more thgan enough trouble already. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They should be: MOS:DASH asks for them . <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know it's not an article on Juno, but is there anything we can say about what that spacecraft observed: did or will it confirm, sharpen or change any of the findings from Galileo? Are any of its research tasks shaped by the experience of Galileo?
 * Added a bit about Juno. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That's my lot on a first pass. The article is certainly a monumental piece of work, and I appreciated the occasional tours into more general areas of astronomy and science when they helped explain the specifics of the mission. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

AG
Reserving a spot. Artem.G (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

First comments:
 * Galileo Project managers table looks broken on mobile, I'd also suggest to move it from the lead.
 * Pravda? Works okay on my iphone. Where do you suggest moving it to? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I think it's either android or chrome quirk. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Following the approval of the Voyager missions - link Voyager program
 * linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * would cost $634 million (equivalent to $2147 million in 2023) - $2147 looks strange, IMO 2.147 billion reads better.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * develop and cost up to $100 million (equivalent to $339 million in 2023.[32][31] - missing parenthesis
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * while the legal challenge was not frivolous - why frivolous is a red link?
 * Not sure how it became red. Possible page move. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was noted that the name was also that of a spacecraft in the Star Trek television show. - maybe something like "The name also belongs to a spaceship in the Star Trek series."?
 * The point is that this fact was acknowledged at the time. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * a previously unknown radiation belt 31,000 miles (50,000 km) and at an elevation of 112 miles (180 km) below - you usually use km before miles
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Scientist Carl Sagan, a strong supporter of the Galileo mission, - maybe "The astronomer Carl Sagan ..."?
 * His article calls him a "Planetary scientist", so went with that. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lunar observations sections lacks any text, did Galileo made any important observations, or maybe the Moon was a test target for its cameras?
 * I believe so. I will have to dig up a source though. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If nothing better found, these can work, , , and . Artem.G (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a paragraph. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that Galileo (spacecraft) exists, but I think a small section about the spacecraft and its instruments can be helpful.
 * Added a pagrapha about the apcecraft. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On 26 March 1993, comet-seeking astronomers - you use both 26 March 1993 and March 26, 1993 date formats in the article
 * Should use mdy, although that seems unnatural for a NASA article. Changed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Follow-on missions can be a little bit more verbose, at least for Juno.

More to follow later. Artem.G (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

More comments: Artem.G (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and the Space Shuttle main engines (SSME) running at full power—109 percent of their rated power level.[20] Running at this power level necessitated the development of a more elaborate engine cooling system.[28] - two questions. First: full power should be 100%, so is it correct to say "at full power" here? Maybe smth like "above its full power"? I don't know the right terminology here, so maybe I'm wrong. And second: why more elaborate cooling system was needed? The engines were not designed to work at full power?
 * 100% refers to the rated power. See RS-25. FPL was 109 percent of rated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * nice, makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * but NASA hoped to be able to recoup some of this through separate completive bidding on the two. - I'm not sure I understand what's "separate completive bidding"
 * Typo, Should have been "competitive". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and the two Voyager spacecraft each carried 80 percent of plutonium - 80% of Galileo's amount?
 * Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe link Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems in Remote detection of life on Earth
 * Added link. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the experiment was considered a resounding success and the data acquired will likely be used in the future to design laser downlinks that will send large volumes of data very quickly from spacecraft to Earth. The scheme was studied in 2004 for a data link to a future Mars orbiting spacecraft.[90] - any updates on that? It's a bit strange to see future tense about data from 1992 experiment.
 * At the time it was written there was not, but in December 2023, NASA's Deep Space Optical Communications experiment on the Psyche spacecraft used infrared lasers for two-way communication between Earth and the spacecraft. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Through the implementation of sophisticated technologies - what are these technologies? And does it mean that HGA was completely off, unable to transmit anything?
 * Data compression software. Changed to this, with a link. HGA was rendered space junk. made this clearer. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * a total power of about 10 zeptowatts - a power of 10 should be more readable
 * Very well. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * a 1980 suggestion that the results of Galileo could be distributed electronically instead of on paper was regarded as ridiculous by geologists - just curious - it means that previously all data received from spacecraft (ie. Voyager) was printed and not stored on a tape or a computer, right?
 * Voyager data was stored on 8-track magnetic tape, 9-track magnetic tape and paper tape. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks, never thought about that!
 * Its shape was not remarkable for an asteroid of its size.[110] - what is a 'remarkable shape' for an asteroid?
 * Round. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * dubbed Dactyl after the legendary Dactyloi; craters on Dactyl were named after individual dactyloi. - gloss dactyloi
 * What are you suggesting here? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe something like "dubbed Dactyl after the legendary Dactyloi, the Ancient Greek mythical race"? Though I agree that it's also not ideal. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dactyl appeared to be an S-type asteroid, and spectrally different from 243 Ida - type of Ida is not mentioned
 * An S-type. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and telemetry from the spacecraft, travelling at the speed of light, took 37 minutes to reach the JPL - it reads like the spacecraft itself is travelling at the speed of light. Suggest to change it to "transmitted at the speed of light"
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and how they had escaped from Jupiter's strong gravitational - gravitational is a red link
 * Corrected typo. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another opportunity to observe Io arose during the GEM, when Galileo flew past Io on orbits I24 and I25, and it would revisit Io during the GMM, on orbits I27, I31, I32 and I33.[155] - what're GEM and GMM? It's explain only in Mission extension, but should be explained at first mention.
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Occultations by Europa, Io and Jupiter provided data on the atmospheric profiles of Europa, Io and Jupiter - that's a bit repetitive
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Clark Chapman argued - need to be introduced
 * Called him an astronomer. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With more data on hand, in 2003 a team led Kevin Zahle - "by" Kevin Zahle?
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael Carr, a planetologist from the US Geological Survey, argued that, on the contrary, the surface of Europa was subjected to less impacts than Callisto or Ganymede.[174] - what was his justification?
 * Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the Sun, which had only 4 percent of the intensity of Earth - it reads strange
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The scientific community did not want a repetition of the 1979 Morabito incident - did they really call it "the Morabito incident"?
 * Yes. See, for example,  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * oh wow, the Voyager program really needs a rewrite. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that File:Shuttle-Centaur with Galileo.jpg is better than File:Model_of_Centaur_G_with_Galileo_probe_(upright).jpg
 * I agree with Tercer, the patch looks strange, even though it is from NASA website (and was there since 1996)
 * The image in the article is from a NASA site and therefore regarded as authoritative.
 * In Ganymede and Callisto sections, instead of real photos there are "The internal structure" images. I think real photos would suite the article better, and I'm not sure that internal structures (as pictured) were known during the project.
 * The article discusses composition, so the diagrams help the reader understand the text. But there is no reason we cannot have both. Added images. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Hawkeye7, thanks for the great article and for quick fixes! I support the nomination, and it's probably the best article about a spacecraft mission that I've read. Artem.G (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

T
I'm not going to do a review, I'd just like to repeat a comment from my Good Article review three years ago that went unaddressed: the mission patch in the infobox is hideous, and it's not the real one. It's easy to find photos of the real one online  and since it's NASA work it should be public domain. Tercer (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * NASA's statement regarding all of its missions emblems is: "Their reproduction in any form other than in news, information and education media is not authorized without approval."


 * Our use falls under this Fair Use clause, but Commons disagrees.
 * I am will to upload a non-free image if that is the consensus here. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WSC
Queries by WereSpielChequers. I'm enjoying reading this but not sure I know enough about the topic to do a useful review. That's it for now, maybe more later  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Galileo performed close observations of another asteroid, 243 Ida, at 16:52:04 UTC on August 28, 1993, at a range of 2,410 km (1,500 mi). Measurements were taken from Galileo" Was 2,410 the closest approach or the point where they started taking observations? Maybe I'm wrong but my understanding of these flybys is that there is a brief period of time to take observations, and observations start and end at a greater distance than the instance of closest approach.
 * I have elaborated on this. It was both the closest approach and the point where they started taking observations, due to an operational problem. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "It orbits faster though, with a rotation period of 1.769 days. As a result, rotational and tidal forces are 220 times as great as those on Earth's moon." I thought that the greater mass and maybe proximity of Jupiter to Io as opposed to the Moon to Earth would explain the tidal forces. Though perhaps we are talking about tides on Jupiter as IO also faces Jupiter so the tidal forces would presumably be explained by a bulge.
 * Clarified that we are talking about Io. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The orbiter was powered by 570-Watt (at launch) radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs)" how many of these 570 watt generators?
 * There were two of them; total output was 570 W. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The Rogers Commission handed down its report on June 6, 1986.[47] It was critical of NASA's safety protocols and risk management" I'm assuming this was a report on the Challenger disaster, but perhaps we should say so.
 * You assumed correctly. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (Support)
For now, just some random comments. I don't know if I'll have time for a full review.
 * Random comments are always most welcome. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There's many citations to Meltzer 2007. Unfortunately, the PDF accessed by the URL only includes the front matter up to page xvii.  Is there a better URL that gets the whole thing?
 * I had that problem too, but I thought it might be a issue with my browser. Switched to the 12 January archive. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Background:

 * "They were followed by the more advanced Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, which were launched on 5 September and 20 August 1977 respectively" Is it worth a short explanation here of why Voyager 1 was launched after Voyager 2?
 * Probably not, but I have added a footnote explaining that Voyager 1 reached Jupiter and Saturn first. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Initiation:

 * "NASA's Scientific Advisory Group (SAG)" the acronym SAG is never used after being defined here, so no reason to have it.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems awkward to say "the JPL". Our own JPL article and https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ call it just JPL; why not the same here?
 * Seems more awkward to me, but changed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "and the probe would be the first to enter its atmosphere" I would make it "and the first to enter its atmosphere"
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "a Mariner spacecraft like that used for Voyager". I'm not 100% sure what this means.  I think you mean "as was used for Voyager".  The way it's written now, I could be taken to mean "of similar design".
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Attitude was determined with reference to the Sun and Canopus" somewhere around here, include a link to star tracker.
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "This allowed it to take high resolution images". Clarify what "this" and "it" refer to.  Either or both could be the accelerometer, which I don't think is what you intended.  It's also unclear how better attitude control affected the camera resolution, which I assume was only a function of the camera sensor.
 * It is easier to take longer exposures images if the camera is held still. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but less camera motion is not the same as higher resolution. On the other hand, now that I've got the full Meltzer PDF (thanks!), I see that it does indeed say "could help maximize photographic resolution".  I think that's a bizarre way to say it, but that is what the source says, so who am I to argue with NASA? RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee". Many of these subcommittees have a linkable article.  Is there one for this?
 * There is not. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Casani solicited suggestions for a more inspirational name for the project". I had to go hunting a few paragraphs back to figure out who Casani was, so maybe re-introduce him here as "project manager Casani"?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "from people associated with it, and the most votes went to " this is a long sentence. Maybe instead of the comma, a full-stop or semicolon?
 * Split sentence. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " Casani officially announced that he had chosen the name", was the choice his alone, or was he just announcing the result of a group decision?
 * He chose, but I presume the decision may have been ratified by senior management. Hawkeye7   (discuss)

Preparation

 * "a launch on Space Shuttle Columbia on the STS-23 mission" rephrase to avoid the repetition of "on". Maybe "Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-23 mission"?
 * Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "sometime between 2 and 12 January 1982" is inconsistent with Use mdy dates
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the Galileo project's engineers decided" I think you can just say "project engineers decided" and trust the reader to understand that you're talking about the Galileo project.
 * Changed as suggested
 * "To enhance reliability and reduce costs ... This improved reliability and reduced costs" eliminate the redundancy.
 * Eliminated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Another 165 kilograms (364 lb) was added in structural changes to improve reliability" aerospace engineers don't take on 165 kg without a good reason (famous quote: "I’d sell my grandmother for a one-pound reduction!"); is there something more we can say here about what this additional weight was used for?
 * I've checked all three sources, and noine are specific on this point. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the three-stage IUS was itself overweight" overweight compared to what? It's maximum design capacity?  Some assumed weight used in early mission calculations?
 * Design specs. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft, an atmospheric probe and a Jupiter orbiter". This is confusing.  Perhaps this gets cleared up later on, but at this point I'm lost, trying to figure out if we're talking about one spacecraft or two.  Here, you talk about two.  But in the lead, you say "the Galileo spacecraft consisted of an orbiter and an entry probe. It was delivered into Earth orbit on October 18, 1989" so that's one spacecraft.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "a signal from Earth takes anything from 35 to 52 minutes to reach Jupiter". A few points here.  First, "anything" is kind of informal language.  But more importantly, I'd explain the nature of this variation; i.e. it's because the Earth-Jupiter distance varies depending on where they both are in their orbits; readers who are not familiar with how this stuff works might guess it has to do with other factors like varying amounts of power available on the spacecraft, or whatnot.  Also, I think these sorts of things are typically cited as round-trip time because that's what really matters if you're trying to do remote control; downlink delay to send telemetry, plus the uplink delay to send a command based on the telemetry you received.
 * Added an explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to define USAF the first time you use it.
 * Done. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "autonomous spacecraft,[35] which was a necessity for deep space probes," There's something odd about the grammar here, but I'm not sure what.  Maybe "were a necessity" (or, just "were necessary")?
 * Deleted "which was" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " posed little value when observed from a safe distance," I don't think "posed" is the right word here.  Maybe "Provided"?
 * "promised" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Most of the asteroids in the vicinity ... one of the largest of the asteroids" No need to repeat "asteroids"
 * Deleted repetition. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a generic comment, you use "flyby" many times in the article, but never explain what it is. For the benefit of our readers who don't know anything about spaceflight, you should explain what a flyby is the first time it's used in the main body.
 * Linked, with a definition. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even more generically, please read through the entire article looking for technical words and consider whether a naive reader would understand them. As an example, you talk about "the orbiter in February 1984 with the probe following".  How does an orbiter differ from a probe?  Other words that might need explaining include "autonomous", "attitude" (we don't want to be launching any spacecraft in a bad mood!) but those are just a few examples, I'm sure you'll find more.
 * Added links, explanations. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Still talking generically, it might be a good idea to give real-life examples of units that a reader might be unfamiliar with. For example, "a lithium–sulfur battery rated at 730 Watt-hours"; it would help the reader understand this better if you said that was about how much energy is in a typical car battery (but please double-check me on that and find a WP:RS)
 * On average, a 12-Volt car battery can maintain about 5 Amperes for ten hours. That makes such a battery a 50 Ampere-Hour battery. That is equal to around 12 x 50 = 600 Watt-Hours. No idea if this is a reliable source. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Spacecraft
(my apologies for these comments comming in dribs and drabs)
 * "general-purpose heat source radioisotope thermoelectric generators (GPHS-RTGs)" WP:SEAOFBLUE.  I suggest only linking to GPHS-RTG, and let people drill down from there if they want more details.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "generated 570 Watts at launch ... rated at 730 Watt-hours." I'm not sure how to handle this better, but it's jarring to have two consecutive sentences talking about power sources using different units (power vs energy).  I understand the difference, but I suspect a less technically savvy reader will just be confused and/or come away with the wrong impression that the battery is "bigger" than the RTG, when in fact those values can't be compared in any useful way.  I see that you're just giving the data as it's presented in the NASA report, but it would still be nice if there was a better way to present this.  Actually, a quick calculation says average of 520 watts x 8 year = 36 MW-Hrs.  Upon reflection, this makes sense; the battery only runs the atmopheric probe for the short time it takes to descend and burn up.  Hopefully you can find some RS that goes into this sort of analysis so you can present it in the article.
 * This still needs to be addressed. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Heavy Ion Counter." Why the upper case?
 * A holdover from the original version, which used this form. After a change in the MOS (MOS:EXPABBR) in 2017, I and other editors went through the article and removed the uppercasing of abbreviated forms. De-capped. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reconsideration

 * "flight tore the spacecraft apart" seems like an unencyclopedic way to phrase that. Maybe something like "Resulted in loss of the vehicle and the deaths of ..."
 * There was a debate about this in one Challenger disaster article. Some people wrote that the spacecraft exploded when it was actually torn apart by aerodynamic forces. This article follows the more precise wording chosen over there. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "This was only partly due to the NASA management's increased aversion to risk in the wake of the Challenger disaster; NASA management also considered ..." This appears to be based on a p 217 quote from Marty Winkler of General Dynamics commenting on his interpretation of NASA management's decision.  So I think this deserves attribution as Winkler's opinion.
 * Is is the opinion of historians Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so it needs some attribution, "According to Virginia Dawson and Mark Bowles ..." RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "for a time it looked like its next trip would be to the Smithsonian Institution." That's a cute way to phrase it, but maybe it should be stated a bit more formally. Also, it's an unattributed quote from the source, so that's a problem.
 * Altered to match the quote, and turned into a quotation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "southerly declination of −23 degrees" -> "declination of 23 degrees south" Likewise for "northerly one of +18 degrees"
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Furthermore ... so the main tracking station would be the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex in Australia". That makes it sound like using Canberra is a problem.  Is it?  Why?
 * Redundancy. There was only one complex in the southern hemisphere but two in the northern. Expanded on this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nuclear concerns

 * "plutonium in the Galileo's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) and General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) modules" This makes it sound like these are two different things, each with their own plutonium supply. My reading of GPHS-RTG leads me to believe this is a single unit with a single plutonium supply which performs both functions, so this needs to be clarified.
 * Correct. Changed to "Galileo GPHS-RTG modules Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The overall tone of the first paragraph seems in violation of WP:NPOV. You minimize the risk ("what they perceived as an unacceptable risk") and then state in wiki-voice that "They had been used for years in planetary exploration without mishap", implying that there is indeed no risk.
 * There is a whole paragraph about the risk. The issue is what degree of risk is "unacceptable". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " If the Galileo/IUS combination fell free of the orbiter". Missing a word?  of -> from, perhaps?
 * Looks okay to me, but changed "of" to "from" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I must be becoming dyslexic.  I read that as "free fell", as "the RTG was in free fall".  My bad. RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "an accident might have released up to 11,568 curies (428,000 GBq)." Another example of a unit which is almost certainly unfamiliar to most of our readers.  Is that a lot?  Are we talking a couple of dental X-ray's worth or another Chernobyl?  Likewise with "NASA concluded that the chance of such a disaster was 1 in 2,500".  I have no idea if that's a lot compared to all the other risks.  NASA must have some standard risk analysis budget. How does this compare with other missions?  Also, what does "such a disaster" refer to?  In ther previous paragraph you give two different scenarios; which of those is this?
 * Chernobyl released between 50 and 185 million curies; three mile island released about 2.5 million curies. I have no figures on the risk assessments of other missions. Part of my job involves carrying out risk assessments, and the low odds and moderate consequences would mean approval. Linked the unite. Deleted "such". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)+

Launch

 * "There were fears that the spacecraft might be hijacked by anti-nuclear activists or terrorists". I'm guessing this is due to the plutonium, but please don't make the reader guess.  As an aside, I also have to wonder about the risk was of sleep-deprived truck drivers in a high speed convoy over an unfamiliar route at night having a crash. :-)
 * Apparently, there is a Nova (American TV program) episode about this, but I haven't seen it. Added that the plutonium was the concern. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Venus encounter

 * "three hours into the flyby, the tracking station at Goldstone had to be shut down due to high winds" If it was being tracked by Canberra and Madrid, why did it matter what was going on at Goldstone?  I'm guessing the answer is that by the time three hours had passed, Goldstone had become the active station, but that should be explained for the benefit of our less technically savvy readers.  It also seems odd that you give the time of the flyby down to the second ("05:58:48 UTC") implying it's a discrete moment in time, then later talk about being three hours into it.  Maybe just note that 05:58:48 was the time of closest approach?
 * Clarified. Note that 10 February in Canberra and Madrid was only 9 February at JPL. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm just missing it but I don't see where you explained this. RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Galileo's closest approach to Venus came at 05:58:48 UTC on February 10, 1990, at a range of 16106 km." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You might also want to explain that doppler provides a direct measurement of the relative velocity between two bodies (in this case, Galileo and the Earth). Again, this is something our more sophisticated readers will know, but will leave others struggling to understand.
 * Doppler is linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I think it would still be better to provide some explanation here. I suspect most people are familiar with the "train whistle gets lower in pitch as the train passes" demonstration, but I don't think they would necessarily make the leap to "by measuring the change in carrier frequency of the spacecraft's transmission compared to the nominal frequency, you can compute the spacecraft's velocity relative to Earth", and Doppler effect isn't much help for the casual reader trying to figure that out.  Likewise, they might have heard of "Doppler radar" in the context of some gizmo the cops use to give you a speeding ticket, but I think it's asking a lot to expect the casual reader to understand the application of that to space navigation. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added an explanation, with a link. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "low gain antennae (LGA)" probably should be "LGAs" (plural)
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "DSN's 70 meters (230 ft)", meter (singular)
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Earth's strong magnetic field causes this to occur ... from its center," it's unclear what "this" and its" refer to. I think you're talking about the Earth's bow shock, and the Earth's center, but clarify.
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "causes the bow wave", I assume "bow wave" and "bow shock" are synonyms, but perhaps reduce confusion by just using the same term in both places.
 * Used "bow shock" consistently.

Earth encounters

 * "Galileo made two small course corrections on 9 to 12 April and 11 to 12 May 1990". The source says, "TCM4 was the largest course correction that Galileo would have to perform", which seems at odds with your statement that they were "small".
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the first time that a deep space probe had returned to Earth from interplanetary space." this is almost word-for-word from the source and is thus a WP:CLOP violation. Either rephrase in your own words or make it a direct quote.
 * WP:LIMITED applies here. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The opportunity was taken to conduct a series of experiments." This sentence only makes sense when read in the context of the section heading; it should stand on its own.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "These included strong absorption of light ... caused by absorption" too many absorptions.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "These included strong absorption ... of any known natural source" run-on sentence
 * Looks okay to me. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the first ever controls" link to Scientific control
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "another groundbreaking experiment was performed" in who's opinion was it groundbreaking? And since this is "another groundbreaking experiment", what were the other(s)?
 * Probably the sources, which are often written in American English. Deleted "groundbreaking". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "frequency doubled Nd:YAG laser" SEAOFBLUE, also, link more specifically to Nonlinear optics.
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "at a wavelength of 532 nm" I'll admit to not understanding most of Nonlinear optics, but I assume if the frequency doubled, the wavelength is halved, which leads me to wonder if 532 nm is the wavelength before or after the frequency doubling.
 * After. Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Cassegrain telescope" link to Cassegrain reflector (I assume that's the right target). I've never heard of using a telescope to transmit an optical beam, but obviously the optics are symmetric, so I assume you put the laser into "eye" end, but it might be worth clarifying that.
 * The source says: "coupled to a Cassegrain telescope through a coudé mount arrangement." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Add link to Reflecting telescope RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "produced images of Earth clearly showing the laser pulses" did they just detect the pulses, or was data actually communicated over this carrier?
 * Just detected. The article goes on to describe subsequent work on laser communications. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

High gain antenna problem

 * "Once Galileo headed beyond Earth, it was no longer risky to employ the HGA", HGA was defined several sections earlier; it might be useful to re-introduce where what the acronym means.
 * Abbr template used, per MOS:ACRO1STUSE Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TIL that abbr exists, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "or 330 seconds if one failed" -> "... if one actuator failed".
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "They would drive a worm gear." Not clear what "they" is; probably "the actuator motors", but this and the previous sentence could be combined and rephrased to make that more clear.
 * Correct. Clarified. Combined. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume "graphite-epoxy" means Carbon-fiber reinforced polymer; if so, link.
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ", and when the driver motor started " -> combine with previous sentence with a semicolon, dropping "and".
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the spacecraft's spin rate had decreased" I assume this was due to the increased moment of rotational inertia? If so, it would be good to explain that (assuming a RS says so).
 * Correct. Added, with a source. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The first suggestion was to re-fold the antenna" who suggested this?
 * Source doesn't say. Re-worded instead. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "so after five deploy and stow operations, the DDA torque was half its original value" This is confusing.  Previously you said they didn't try to refold it, and now you're saying they tried five times.  Something's amiss here.
 * Nothing is amiss; they did not try to refold it. Deleted the (correct and sourced) sentence to remove any confusion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "during the 4.5 years that Galileo spent in storage ... eroded and worn by vibration during the three cross-country journeys by truck" So, did the damage happen during storage or during truck rides?
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "since it transmitted a signal isotropically" this is confusing. Earlier you talk about swinging LGA-1 and LGA-2 to their hard stops, which implies some kind of aiming capability.  But now you're talking about isotropic radiation, which to me says it's not aimed in any particular direction.  This should be clarified.
 * Looks like you have found an error in the source. Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what "which transmitted over a one-sixth half-angle" means. One-sixth of a degree?  One sixth of the beamwidth of the LGA?  Also, in "its bandwidth was significantly less", I'd be specific and say "data bandwidth" or "digital bandwidth", or even better, "data rate" to avoid confusion with Bandwidth (signal processing). RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, "The two LGAa were capable of ... but since it transmitted its signal" plural/singular inconsistency. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And, "but since it transmitted its signal over a cone with a 120-degree half-angle ... its bandwidth was significantly less than that of the HGA," implies that the beamwidth was the only cause of the reduced data rate. In reality other causes were reduced transmit power and (if I'm reading this right) the need to use a smaller aperture receiving antenna on S-band. RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Typo. It should have been "a half-angle of one-sixth of a degree". Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You also should say some more about how they switched to a better compression algorithm. The JPL source says "By programming a software (11,1/2) convolutional code on a Galileo compute".  I assume this meant they had the ability to upload new software to the spacecraft, which certainly deserves at least some explanation. RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they had the ability to send software updates. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a bit about the compression algorithms used. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Conservatism was not restricted to engineers ... putting a wooden ruler up to the screen." This sentence seems out of place for this section.
 * Storage was expensive in the 1980s. The organization I worked for abandoned plans to put five years data online in favour of just 12 months because each month required a disk that cost $20,000 at the time, so that saved nearly a million dollars. A decade later, I bought the 48 disks for $200 each on my corporate Amex card. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Asteroid encounters

 * link asteroid belt
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * S-type asteroid 951 Gaspra SEAOFBLUE
 * False titles are allowed in American English, but re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "passing ... to a distance" to -> at?  Or maybe "within"?
 * Changed to "at". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "In all, 57 images of Gaspra were taken", drop "In all"
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps the most surprising feature was several relatively flat planar areas" Who is making the editorial judgement about how surprising this is?  "According to Joe Scientist, the most surprising feature was..."
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Galileo suddenly abandoned the program and resumed its cruise configuration." Unclear what that means.  What is "the program"?  Does resuming it's cruise configuration mean it attempted to undo the course correction, or powered down the instruments it was going to use for observing, or something else maybe?  Also, "suddenly" sounds like editorializing, so attribute: "Fred Flight Controller said the configuration change happened suddenly".
 * It is not editorialising or opinion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Measurements were taken from Galileo using SSI and NIMS" Drop "from Galileo". Of course they were taken from Galileo; there's no other possible place they could have been taken from.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The requirement to use the LGA resulted in a transmission rate of 40 bits per second." You've said this already in a previous subsection, so no need to repeat. Or maybe something like: "At this time, the LGA was still only running at the 40 bps data rate available during the Gaspra flyby", which gives the reader some context about where they were in the ongoing efforts to increase the data rate.
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Voyage to Jupiter

 * "A tiny Doppler shift in the signal of the order of a few centimeters per second" This seems like a weird mixing of units.  Doppler shift is a change in frequency.  From that you can compute a velocity.  So, "A velocity change of a few centimeters per second, as measured by Doppler shift".
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "it was fired for the first time" Perhaps I'm picking nits here, but was it ever test fired on Earth? If so, "fired for the first time in XX years", or "after completing its manufacturing tests", or whatever.  It's certainly possible this was its first firing ever; some engines are never test fired before a mission, but some are.
 * "The main engine could not be tested or fired prior to release of the atmospheric probe because the probe was mounted in front of the engine nozzle." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "it would perform as a communications relay": maybe "perform" -> "act" ?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " The Galileo probe's project manager ... this role could be performed by LGA-1" This sentence is awkwardly placed. The previous sentence talks about firing the engine, and the next sentence talks about how that firing changed the velocity, but this sentence has nothing to do with the engine.
 * The engine was fired to place the orbiter in a position to act as a relay for the probe. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Isbel, Douglas; Wilson, James H. "Galileo Flying Through Intense Dust Storm" (Press release). NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 95-147. Retrieved November 16, 2020. URL can't be reached.
 * Updated the link. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Jupiter
(note to self: next up, Io)
 * "when it was still 15 million kilometers (9.3 million miles) from Jupiter", drop "still"
 * Dropped. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The bow shock was not stationary, but moved to and fro in responses to solar wind gusts" "not stationary" is redundant with "moved".  Also, responses -> response
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "by which time it was 9 million kilometers" unclear what "it" refers to.
 * Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " Most robotic spacecraft respond to failures by entering safe mode ... not possible for Galileo.[136]" You've already discussed the need for autonomous operation in Preparation; no need to go over that again here.
 * Trimmed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The descent probe awoke in response to an alarm" the word "alarm" sounds like there was some kind of failure that it was responding to. Maybe "timer" wou;d be a better word?
 * "Alarm" is more technically correct. In computing, an alarm is for a clock time, whereas a timer is relative to the CPU cycles. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "encountered a previously undiscovered belt of radiation ... Before the atmospheric entry, the probe detected a previously unknown radiation belt". Is this two different belts?  Needs to be clarified one way or the other.
 * There is only one; the sources confused the article writer. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You use "bars" as a unit. I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be pluralized, i.e. "1.5 to 2 bar".  I also don't see the point of convert here; that's useful for metric-english conversions, but bar -> kPa doesn't add anything of value.
 * "bars" is correct. Surprised that it converted to kilopascals; removed the conversion as unecessary. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The probe slowed to subsonic speed" It's not clear what "subsonic" means in this context. I assume we're talking about below the speed of sound in the local Jovian atmosphere?  If so, clarify that, and give a number for what Mach 1 is in those conditions.
 * Checking the sources, I find that Mach 50 is 170,000 kph, which we already said. I find Mach confusing in this context myself, although it is sourced, so removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "which would then take days to arrive using the LGA" maybe "to be transmitted" instead of "to arrive"?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "a pressure of 22.7 standard atmospheres" earlier you used "bar"; why the switch to "standard atmosphere" here?
 * The source. Added a conversion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "completely destroying it" How does "completely destroying" differ from just plain "destroying"?
 * Deleted completely. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "more winds than expected" -> "stronger winds than expected"
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The atmosphere was more turbulent and the winds a lot stronger than expected." largely duplicates the previous sentence.
 * Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "it entered a 198-day parking orbit" link Parking orbit. Also, it's not clear what 198 days refers to.  Is that how long it was in orbit, or how long a single orbit took?
 * Orbital period - added explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Most of its initial 7-month long orbit", we already know it's 198 days, no need to convert that to months.
 * Deleted "7-month" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Io
(up to Ganymede)
 * "radius of 1,821.3 kilometers" -> mean radius
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Link orbital resonance here, since it's the first use (and unlink under Europa)
 * Done. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Link "Tidally locked" to Tidal locking
 * linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Link "Earth's moon".
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "to melt rock and create volcanoes and lava flows." rephrase to avoid repeating "and"
 * Done. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " Only the fields and particles instruments were allowed to collect data, as these required the tape recorder to run at slow speeds, and it was believed that it could handle this, whereas the SSI camera required it to operate a high speed, with abrupt stops and starts." This is almost word-for-word from the source.  See WP:CLOP.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "When Galileo next approached Io on I25 at 20:40 Pacific Time" I get that the source you're citing uses Pacific Time, but you're using UTC everywhere else, so convert to UTC.
 * Converted to UTC. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Galileo flew past Io on arrival day" explain what "arrival day" is, probably under the "Arrival" section above. There's a bunch of possible days that could be called that (arrival at the bow shock, closest point of approach to Jupiter, entering orbit, etc)
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "As a consequence, three quarters of the observations were taken over a period of just three hours." I don't understand why this is a consequence of there being an Earth-Sun conjunction.
 * Galileo cannot be received when the line of sight is blocked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that only affects transmitting data to Earth. Observations can still happen and record the data on tape, so I still don't see how one is a consequence of the other. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Link to Solar conjunction
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The I24, I25 and I27 encounters had been on equatorial orbits, which made it difficult to determine whether Io had its own magnetic field, or one induced by Jupiter" why does being in equitorial orbit make this difficult? And, are we talking about Jupiter's equator or Io's equator?
 * Source says: "All of our previous magnetic measurements at Io have been on equatorial passes, and from those we can't tell whether the field at Io is induced by Jupiter's strong magnetic field or produced by Io itself". No idea why. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "but data transmission was hindered by a Solar occultation" link to Occultation
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A likely source was brine below the ice crust" link brine
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ganymede

 * "with a diameter of 5,270 kilometres" you describe the other moons by their radii. Pick one and use it consistently.  Also, be consistent about kilometres vs kilometers.
 * Changed to use the radius. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "strength of about 750 nanoteslas (0.0075 G)" Tesla and Gauss are both SI units; no need to show both. But it would be useful to compare this to the strength of Earth's magnetic field, since most readers will have no clue how big a Tesla is.
 * Added a footnote. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Link "inclination" to Orbital inclination.
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "This discovery led naturally to questions about its origin." "This" and "its" both refer back to the previous paragraph.  Maybe just combine the two paragraphs.
 * Merged. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "the scientist in charge of the magnetometer experiment" needs a comma after.
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if "Arbela Sulcus" needs to be capitalized.
 * NASA consistently capitalises it. eg.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Callisto

 * "allowed them to operate as a gigantic array" link to Aperture synthesis
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "enabling a higher bit rate despite the spacecraft's long distance from Earth", Drop the "despite ...." clause; the larger aperture allowed for a higher bit rate regardless of all other factors. The biggest problem here was that the HGA was inoperative; the transmission distance was exactly what was expected during mission planning.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "40 percent ice." clarify what you mean by "ice" Do you mean specifically frozen H2O, or the more general sense i.e. Volatile (astrogeology).
 * Changed to "water ice" but another editor may come along and decide that is a tautology. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Amalthea

 * "long axis towards Jupiter at all times ... pointed in relative to Galileo at all times." rephrase to avoid the repetition of "at all times'.
 * Re-phrased. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "weighed 2.08×1018 kilograms" -> "had a mass of ..."
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "debris ejected from Amalthea and form a tenuous, and perhaps temporary, ring.[220]" A ring around Jupiter or around Amalthea?
 * Jupiter. Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Star scanner

 * "predominantly >2 MeV (0.32 pJ) electrons" Is there any reason to convert to J? I would think MeV would be the universally used unit of measurement here.
 * They are, but... MOS:CONVERSIONS: "For units of measure that are ... not part of the SI or US customary systems... supply a parenthetical conversion into at least SI units." Electron volts are Non-SI units mentioned in the SI, hence a conversion is supplied. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "second magnitude star Delta Velorum" link to Magnitude (astronomy)
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Radiation-related anomalies

 * The Tomayko, James E. (March 1988) URL 404's
 * Restored from archive. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

End of mission and deorbit

 * "Galileo impacted Jupiter in darkness just south of the equator" What does it mean to "impact" something made of gas?
 * The sources consistent use the term, and we have a whole article on impact events on Jupiter that does not define it. But at some point it gets so dense that it is like hitting a solid surface.
 * The astronomers inform me that this is the case on Earth too; "impact" is 50-80 km up, not on the surface. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Galileo had not been sterilized prior to launch and could have carried bacteria from Earth." link sterilized and bacteria.
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, finally got to the end. So much for "just some random comments" :-) I'm going to give this a rest for a bit then come back and see how things look overall.

Second pass

 * The orbiter would be in orbit around Jupiter when the probe arrived, allowing it to perform its role as a relay." It's unclear what "it" refers to: the orbiter or the probe.
 * I thought it was clear enough, but changed it to "the orbiter". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "required a second Space Shuttle mission and a second carrier to be built for the probe" What is the carrier? I'm guessing it's some mounting adapter that lets you install the probe into the shuttle cargo bay, but clarify.
 * No, it is a spacecraft. The probe wasn't intended to fly to Jupiter by itself. Clarified this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "NASA hoped to be able to recoup some of this through competitive bidding." You put that in just for comic relief, right?
 * The source says ""Delaying to 1984 is more cost efficient because we can go into more competitive bidding for the carrier." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Who am I to argue with NASA? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "President pro tempore of the Senate" I don't think I've ever seen this spelled out in full, it's always just "president pro tem", so that's probably what we should use here.
 * Um, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

General comments

 * All images need MOS:ALT text. Some images (for example, File:Galileo atmospheric probe.jpg) include extensive amounts of text, so pay close attention to MOS:TEXTASIMAGES.
 * At this point, the lack of ALT text is the only thing holding me back from supporting this. RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The ALT for File:Galileo atmospheric probe.jpg got cut off (I assume there should be a number at the end), but that won't keep me from supporting. Overall, an interesting article.  Thank you for submitting it, and for putting up with my nit-picking.  RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image and source review
File:Artwork Galileo-Io-Jupiter.JPG, File:Galileo Preparations - GPN-2000-000672.jpg, File:Galileo probe deployed (large).jpg, File:The Moon from Galileo - GPN-2000-000473.jpg, File:Ganymede diagram.svg, File:Galileo Amalthea artwork.jpg, File:Galileo End.jpg and File:Galileo mission patch.png have broken source links. File:Astronauts John Fabian and Dave Walker pose in front of a model of the Shuttle-Centaur.jpg should have a non-direct image link, especially as it seems to have come from a different website. Is there no source link for File:Galileo in 1983.jpg? File:Descent Module.jpeg and File:Jupiter's clouds.jpg need more information. File:Galileo Probe - AC81-0174.jpg has a broken link, which also seems to be a direct link. Not a comment on images, but the follow-up missions sections seem to be pretty spartan. ALT text ought to get consistent capitalization. Also, File:Artwork Galileo-Io-Jupiter.JPG probably needs a more detailed ALT text, since it describes the apparel of Galileo. Ditto File:Descent Module.jpeg. File:243 ida.jpg'ALT is talking about the wrong moon. Image:Galileo atmospheric probe.jpg'ALT doesn't have the pressure. File:Plate Tectonics on Europa.jpg's ALT probably wants to say "cryolavas"; "cryolarvae" is an interesting concept though.


 * File:Artwork Galileo-Io-Jupiter.JPG, File:Galileo mission patch.png: secondary links still work.
 * File:Galileo Preparations - GPN-2000-000672.jpg, File:The Moon from Galileo - GPN-2000-000473.jpg], File:Ganymede diagram.svg, File:Galileo Amalthea artwork.jpg, : Added archive URLs.
 * File:Galileo probe deployed (large).jpg: not broken.
 * The second and third link are, and the first doesn't show the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Galileo in 1983.jpg: Added source.
 * File:Astronauts John Fabian and Dave Walker pose in front of a model of the Shuttle-Centaur.jpg Link is fine. Requests for direct links will not be honoured. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  17:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant "non-direct" link. As in, a link to the webpage where you found the image, not a link to the image itself. Such direct links can be hard to repair when they break, and the information the link is there for (e.g copyright statements) isn't on the file page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A link has been added to the page where I found the image. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review-wise, I am checking this version; spot-check upon request. #44, #71, #75, #150, #175, #204 are broken. #177 can probably get a better source information than a raw URL. What makes #224 and #225 a reliable source? I am wondering about spaceflightnow.com too, since they don't give much information on themselves. I presume the differences between various sources with respect to identifiers are b/c some of them have identifiers and others don't? That needs doublechecking as e.g Cowen 2001 doesn't have the doi 10.2307/3981750 shown. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * #44, #71, #75, #150, #175, #204 have the archive URL added.
 * #177
 * Deleted #225
 * Spaceflightnow.com is considered reliable (Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40)
 * Hmm? The only mention of Spaceflightnow.com is when it is compared to a different source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I consider Spaceflightnow.com a reliable source for Spaceflight news. We can ask at the WP:RSN. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  12:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what editorial oversight Spaceflight Now provides, and that's what determines if it's a RS or not. They have a "Member Content" section (https://spaceflightnow.com/category/members/); I'd be wary of using anything from there (not that you have).  Looking at the four citations to Spaceflight Now, two ("Galileo to fly over source of recent polar eruption on Io" and "Galileo data recorder still not working") are NASA/JPL NEWS RELEASE, so clearly no problem with those as far as RS goes, but the citations are wonky; they should have NASA/JPL as the publisher and Spaceflight Now noted as the content deliverer using the "via" attribute (or find the originals on a NASA site).  "Galileo spacecraft crashes into Jupiter" is by Peter Bond who has published several books through reputable publishers (https://peterbondspace.com/) so I'm inclined to accept him as a RS based on WP:EXPERTSPS.  "The Galileo trials" by Ben Evans I'm less sure about.  He's described as "a schoolteacher and freelance astronomy and space exploration writer", so I'll need some more convincing to accept him as an expert. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the two press releases with links to the associated NASA/JPL press release pages and removed the Ben Evans reference. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Cowen (2001) doi looks okay to me. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  17:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that it's added, yes. I just wonder if there are other sources that could have DOIs added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the doi in December 2020 . Are we talking about the same link? Usually I rely on the citation bot to add them. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  12:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that, I have no idea what I was seeing there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Jo-Jo, are we good on either or both of those reviews? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan
Hi, my comments: Will be posting more comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the infobox, shouldn't Galileo's missions be in some chronological order, whether ascending or descending?
 * Encounters are in chronological order, but the infobox forces end of mission after start of mission. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider rephrasing "as were Io's volcanism and plasma interactions" to "as were the volcanism and plasma interactions of Io" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "There was also concern": Wouldn't "There were also concerns" be better from a grammatical POV?
 * Not from a grammatical POV. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Ames and JPL decided to use a Mariner spacecraft as was used for Voyager for the Jupiter orbiter...": Wouldn't "Ames and JPL decided to use a Mariner spacecraft also used in the Voyager for the Jupiter orbiter" be more clarifying and less confusing?
 * Tweaked the phrasing. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the 2nd para of the Initiation subsection, do you mean "altitude" when you say "attitude"?
 * Consider moving all the left aligned images to right alignment per MOS:IMAGELOC?
 * MOS:SANDWICH: "Multiple images can be staggered right and left." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "when Earth, Mars and Jupiter and were aligned": remove the extra "and"?
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch": Consider rephrasing to "Robert A. Frosch, the NASA Administrator," to avoid SEAOFBLUE?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

More comments:
 * Shouldn't "Centaur" have a "the" prefix?
 * Used the indefinite article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider linking to liquid hydrogen?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad on the attitude thing, I hadn't seen the link. Consider linking it on first use?
 * Linked attitude control system. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider removing the "of" before "anti satellite weapons"?
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "In December 1984 Casani proposed adding a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite to the Galileo mission. In plotting a course to Jupiter, the engineers were concerned to avoid asteroids": Consider rewording to "In December 1984, Casani proposed adding a flyby of the asteroid 29 Amphitrite to the Galileo mission. In plotting a course to Jupiter, the engineers were concerned about avoiding asteroids."
 * That would be ambiguous. Changed to: "In plotting a course to Jupiter, the engineers wanted to avoid asteroids." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "the lightning activity: Consider removing the "the" prefix?
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but consider linking to high energy particles, heavy ions, and multispectral imaging so readers can have an idea of what these are?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "there was insufficient": "there were insufficient"?
 * Corrected to "were". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider linking to declination?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In quite a few places, proper article prefixes are not there, I have noted down some of these here. Would it be ok with you if I made these minor edits myself?
 * Be careful. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we have the brief details of what the problem was during the I24 orbit?
 * "Apparently, high energy electrons had altered a bit on a memory chip." Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider linking to the Zamama, Prometheus and Pele volcanoes, as done for Pillan Patera?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider linking to convective (heat transfer)?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider linking to tidal flexing (heating)?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "early Earth": do we know the time period, say x million years ago, or say a geological time period, like the Holocene?
 * Afraid not. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For ref #148, consider adding Space.com as the website?
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For ref #161, could we have a link to the article? Is this the one?
 * Yes. Added url. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are refs #192 and 193 the same? If so, could they be clubbed?
 * Yes. Combined. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could we have a link for Carroll 2003? Or perhaps a JSTOR, S2CID, Bibcode or other identifier?
 * No, but I have a ProQuest URL. You will need a ProQuest account to access it. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider linking to Clark Chapman?
 * Already linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider adding these categories: NASA programs, NASA space probes?
 * Category:Galileo program is a subcategory of Category:NASA space probes. Added Category:NASA programs to Category:Galileo program Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to extend my support for promotion to FA. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Overall, a very good article, sources are great.

Drive-by comments

 * Cites 72 and 73 should be pp, not p; and have en dashes, not hyphens.
 * Not page ranges; these pages are numbered with hyphens. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No publisher location for Harland or National Research Council; European Space Science Committee (1998)? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * wink. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)