User:AshLin/GA review comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA Comments on Deep Impact Space

Hi, I'm a first time reviewer of GA. I'm also in a remote part of the world. So you will have to forgive cultural misunderstandings. You have a very impressive article here. It is well referenced. It has excellent images. It gives great and complete coverage. However, presently its B category in rating. To be Ga it has to be at least A class. I hope these comments of mine are seen in the light of room for improvement. Otherwise it obviously deserves GA after the comments are addressed.

Kalyan comments - I am not sure that the first time disclaimer is required. The reason why i state it, is because of the rule that the intentions of the reviewer is always considered in "good faith". However, if you feel strongly, please ignore my comment. A correction here, in the list of rating, "B" rating is followed by "GA" and then by "A". Hence "A" is higher than "GA" and not the way you perceived it. --Kalyan 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• The opening sentance foxes the reader - is it ongoing or yet to reach its objective of meeting Tempel1 mission? Better to begin with -

Deep Impact is an ongoing NASA space probe launched on 12 Jan 2005 for studying...<general purpose of the mission>. The highlight of the mission to date has been <encounter with Comet Tempel & main outcome>. <...your other sentances summarising the rest of the articles followed with the mention of the public interest and ending with the future mission.>.

• I suggest that the sections be rearranged as follows to give a more logical sequence of events based on the likely expectation of the reader for information:-
  • Scientific goals of the mission.
  • Spacecraft construction and design.
  • Mission profile.
  • Mission events.
  • Future activities.
  • Public interest.
• The scientific goals could do with an expansion beyond a single sentance sentence (--Kalyan 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)). You may like to give the goals first and the researchers later.
• Two questions arise in a layman's mind from reading section 'Mission profile'. Something needs to be done about that.
  • Firstly, has the dust not settled as yet showing the impact crater. Will it be possible to get a look at the impact crater after this? Or will it remain unanswered?
  • Secondly - has the ESA found out the composition of the comet as yet.
• This text leaves a person thinking that Deep Impact flyby was reprogrammed to another (unnamed) comet after its mission retargetting to Comet Boethin -

After this flyby of Tempel 1, Deep Impact was retargeted to comet Boethin. On 20 July 2005, a trajectory correction maneuver was performed to place the spacecraft on a trajectory to carry it to the Earth and use a gravitational slingshot to target another comet and the follow-on mission was approved 31 October 2006.

The sentances sentences (--Kalyan 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)) can be combined and resplit along different lines to read better.

• Complete this sentance sentence (--Kalyan 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)) by adding a clause -

If the impactor was loaded with other materials such as explosives, it would create a significant amount of organic vapor... which would have <the following consequence>.

A layman may not understand what is the significance of the organic vapour.

• The sentance sentence (--Kalyan 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)) about the origin of the name with reference to the film can be delinked from preceding text and put in a separate para. The previous text deals with the mission history and the name origin fact suddenly seems jarring as you encounter it.
• This sentance sentence (--Kalyan 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)) should be in past tense as the event is over and since the next sentance is also in past tense :-

The approach phase extends from 60 days before encounter (May 5) until five days before encounter.

• A subsection on post-impact manouvreing or action taken after impact to disengage would add completeness to the 'Mission Events' even if it just one or two lines giving the gist . Maybe the first sentance of future activities or something from last sentances of the mission profile belongs here...
• There appears to be a contradiction, maybe these facts are unconnected, but if I make a mistaken assumption, then others could too. There may be need for some kind of text modification...
  • The proposed $500,000 extended mission...
  • the mission would provide about half of the information as the collision of Tempel 1 but at a tenth of the cost.
  • The total cost of developing the spacecraft and completing its mission reached $US300 million.
• BTW your link to CNN.com places the cost at 330 million dollars, not 300 million dollars, appears to be a typo.
• The wikilink of HRI camera goes to an article on HiRISE camera of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Have I missed something? The wikilink does not mention that this camera has been placed on Deep Impact though the manufacturer is same. In case of Space Missions, arent each of the instruments custom-made? If HRI is different from HiRISE it may be more appropriate to place HiRISE in the wikilinks of 'See also' below.
• The Impact Targetting System and MRI deserve to be wikilinked and stubs made if necessary. These kinds of instruments would be common to other spacecraft too, just as hi res imaging cameras were fixed on Deep Impact as well as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Some other terms in that section such as infrared spectroscopy, and imaging could also do with wikilinking. A quick check for this aspect over the complete article would'nt hurt either.
• In the Results section, the first para doesnt really give a good representation of the results. It requires rework. It gives a negative note in the beginning. Was'nt the mission successful? It achieved the collision, problems with instruments were overcome with ingenuity, navigation was near-perfect. A large plume was created. Here there should be some text describing something of significance in all this. The test is - can the Results section give lucid and succint overview to someone who cannot be bothered to read the rest of the article. Perhaps, this link will help develop it?
• Wikimedia Commons has many Deep Impact instrument images which can be placed in a gallery under Spacecraft construction.
• Lastly, NPOV. Negative events such as the Russian court case have been discussed in the talk and kept out by consensus as per your talk page. But, if GA is to be aspired for, NPOV has to be assured. There should be a reference in the text - albeit a brief one. Playing devil's advocate, are a rock concert and Chinese press release more relevant than a court case to the extent that they are mentioned but not even a single line is permitted for the (I agree) crank case? Remember NPOV is a quickfail criteria for GA, much less FA, which this article deserves to be developed into.

Regards, AshLin 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments are great and very valid. Please follow the process of putting the GA comments on the talk page of the wiki article and leave the GAonHold. Also, i wish you would be an active GA reviewer with multiple GA reviews every week. --Kalyan 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)