Wikipedia:Peer review/Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter/archive1

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Hey, just looking for some ideas as to what we can do to better this article, with the goal being to become a featured article. Thanks! Tuvas 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006  should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006,  should be come February 28, 2006. 


 * Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.


 * There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.


 * This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
 * Can authors be provided for the references?


 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.


 * Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.


 * Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 19:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, am starting to work through this list, starting with a new lead topic statement, which will probably need to be edited some. Thanks for the input!

I do have one question for you, perhaps even for the WP:MOSNUM. Sometimes it appears to be okay to use abreviations for units, other times, it seems inappropriate. When is it okay, and when should they not be used? Tuvas 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, with Featured Articles, you should try to spell out miles/kilometers at the start and you can use abbreviations (mi, km) after the first instance. More comments coming up.  Jtmichcock 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To reply, units should be spelled out in text, but conversions should use abbreviations, like: I am 25 centimeters (5 in) tall (okay fine, no I'm not, just making this up). AndyZ t 21:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

General comments: This article needs quite a bit of work but it is fully capable of reaching featured status. So long as you aren't afraid of pulling it apart and putting it back together. Jtmichcock 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree that the lede needs to be expanded.  Focus in briefly on the specific objectives and tie this in to the equipment to be used."  The phrase "Much as a good scout will path the way for incoming armies" is too cute (and ungrammatical too).  Path the way?  Cost of the mission should be noted.  The last paragraph, in contrast, should avoid the names of the other programs (insert into the body, however) and make clear that "Upon reaching Mars, the Orbiter became one of six active scientific missions, with four now in orbit and two on the ground."
 * 2) The Overview should detail some of the battles over space exploration funding. With a number of notable failures (the latest being the Beagle), it wasn't eady to have Congress pony up for the launch.  Also, I would call this "Overview and Launch" not only because the two topics are inextricably linked, but also because there are way too many sections in this article.
 * 3) The timetable is a deal breaker as far as FAC goes.  Let me stress, this will never become a Featured Article with any sort of list that can be converted into prose.  The only lists that are tolerated are ones with ungodly amounts of names that could not fit comfortably into a paragraph (for example, the names in Bath School disaster -- and I had people wanting to turn all those names into prose!)
 * 4) Since there is a whole lot of things happening on the timetable, you should prepare a separate article called "Timeline of the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter."  Insert in there all elements of funding approval, launch, testing en route, reaching the planet, orbit, scientific testing, lifetime estimate and planned future follow-ups.  Check out the Toledo War that I helped write to see the insertion of the Timeline article.
 * 5) You should never, ever insert something like "MARCI (see below)" into the text.  Explain acronyms right then and there.  Supra is fine, infra never!
 * 6) The three part aerobraking section likewise needs to be converted into prose and you need to cite where the rationale is coming from  Is this NASA material?  If so, cite the web page or other authority.  By and large, the number of cites, just by eyeballing, needs to be doubled.
 * 7) In the Orbital Braking section, you state: The final speed of MRO relative to Mars was only 0.17 m/s (0.4 mph) faster than expected.[2],[3],[4]. Why are there three cites to the same fact?  If one cite is better that the rest, just use that one.  You can add the other citations into the body of the footnote with a see also.
 * 8) The "Science operations and extended mission" needs to be prose.  Again, there's no reason it should be bulleted lists.  Detail not just the what in terms of tests, but why the tests are essential.  You state that one purpose is "map the martian landscape in high resolution" and four bullets down note another goal as "choose the best landing sites for future landers and rovers."  Doesn't the first one go with the fourth?  If not, why not?
 * 9) Instrumentation section should also be combined with the Science operations section.  Then deal with the separate instruments as they relate to the what and why questions.  If you state that one intention is to "map the martian landscape in high resolution," it would flow better to see how that would be accomplished.
 * 10) I can't figure out why there's a section called "Instrumentation" followed by a section called "Science instrumentation."  Very awkward.  More seriously, it's repetitive.  The first section has a one-line about an item that's discussed in the second section.  One section: Instrumentation, followed by subsections dealing with the gross tasks (camera, radar, gravity, etc.).  Let the reader know how these parts fit all together and what ultimately is the goal of each experiment.
 * 11) There are way too many subsections in the Scientific instrumentation section.  Some of these are only a sentence long.  Don't feel you need to break everything down into bolded headers.  The readers are capable enough -- with solid prose -- to comprehend the various aspects of the program.
 * 12) Engineering data should be at least in part at the start.  "How was this built" is a question that should follow funding approval.
 * 13) There is no $ symbol in the entire article and the word dollar never appears.  You have to address costs.  It's scary that I have no idea how expensive this was.
 * 14) You need a conclusion. An "okay, now what?" section. Give the reader some idea as to how long the orbiter will be in service, what sort of follow-up would be appropriate, how a manned mission might benefit, etc.  Recapitulate the expected accomplishments.

English has never been my strong point... I've found myself to be a bigger contributer in content than the words themselves... Thanks for the advice, I'll look towards getting alot of stuff in here. Tuvas 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just remember, Peer Review can last for thirty days. That's a lot of time to rethink and fix.  I would not be offering the above points if I did not think there's a Featured Article in there.  Good luck. Jtmichcock 01:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. I'm just realizing it's a bit further from FA status than I thought, I'm just glad I decided to post here. I'm working on condensing the parts of the article that aren't quite as interesting, I might have gone a bit overboard, but would appreciate any comments. I also managed to add the cost of the spacecraft. There's a few more sections to add a bit more about, and the intro still needs to be re-worked (I semi-intentionally wrote a rough-draft, I know that it needs some work, just hoping that some of the regulars would help me a bit, who have a bit more knowledge of that type of stuff). Tuvas 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, have made alot more changes. I think now that the instrument section is alot more organized than it was before. There isn't any sections that are only a few sentances long. I've still left most of the information on there (With a few bits of HiRISE being moved, the timeline being moved to a differnt page, and a few things along those lines), but as a whole, the page is pretty decent from the standpoint of organization.

Still needed are some careful checks to make sure I didn't remove anything I shouldn't have, a conclusion type section, probably a bit more organization in the overview section, perhaps even a bit more cleaning up there. Also needs a new intro section. I just hope that the article is improving towards the better, although it's probably a bit messy right now... Also needed is some kind of overhaul in the engineering data section, but I don't think anything too terrible ugly there, just changing a few lists to prose. Tuvas 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, some major changes have happened in the last 24 hours, I think most of the problems above cited are taken care of. There might be a stray few, but the bigger ones are gone. Any more comments? Tuvas 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, much better looking. It's actually pretty close to FA status.  You may want to see if there are other sources bedsides NASA's that you can reference wo validate the information.  For the most part, these are going to be newspaper accounts since there are likely no books in print.  You should also look to beef up the individual components with added information about the systems.  For example, I looked at the Electra page cited and discovered that it can act as a conduit for communications for landers without sufficient battery power.  That wasn't in the article, but I inserted it.  Jtmichcock 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is, most non-NASA sources will be sourced from information from NASA, and I'd rather use the primary source. I'll take a look at more of that kind of stuff soon, probably not today though... Tuvas 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph...
 * Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has two nickel metal hydride rechargeable batteries. Used as a power source when the solar panels are not facing the Sun, the batteries will not be charged during launch, orbital insertion and aerobraking or when Mars blocks out the Sun during a period in each orbit. Each battery has an energy storage capacity of 50 ampere-hours (180 kC). The spacecraft cannot utilize the batteries' capacity, because as the they discharge their voltage drops. If the voltage drops below 20 volts, the computer will stop functioning. Planners anticipate that instruments will only require some 40% of the battery capacity.[12]

...is very sloppy. I tried to fix it but I kept making it worse. I may try again later. TimL 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In WP:CONTEXT you will find this guidance: Avoid duplicate links on a page. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, link the first occurrence of a term, and always link when directing to a page for more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series". It is not uncommon to repeat a link that had last appeared much earlier in the article, but there's hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section. I noticed you article tends to use certain words as links to the relevant article over and over again, rather than just the first time you use the word. Gerry Ashton 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have looked at it, and I found one case that it was blatenlty incorrect to double-link it. There is likely more, but I couldn't find them... There is some cases where in different sections, they link to the same part, but as I understand from WP:CONTEXT, that's okay. I mean, to mention in the begining of the article that the University of Arizona helped built HiRISE, and not link to it again when HiRISE is actually talked about would just not work. Still, I'll keep searching, thanks for the help! Tuvas 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, this article hasn't had any comments for a while. The question is now, is it ready to try for FA status? Tuvas 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed, Tuvas 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)