|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CLARREO article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Articles for creation||(Rated B-class)|
Sing-song bureaucrat blues
How bureaucrats make paint dry:
When the mission was scaled back in 2012 due to cuts in funding, the CLARREO science team turned their focus to instrument studies that would further enhance the mission's key climate measurements and develop the new concepts to meet the specified accuracy standards.
This isn't the language of someone wishing to promote science. It rather has that faint, unfortunate aroma of "hurry up and spend to budget". — MaxEnt 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- After 30 minutes AFK, I came back, read the actual citation given (does not support sentiment above) and came up with:
Due to funding cuts in 2012, the CLARREO mission was significantly scaled back, while remaining spaceborne projects were eyed to fill the gap.
- — MaxEnt 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is a mess. Reading it, one would get the impression that this is a major program producing important results for NASA, and neither is true. In the ten years of CLARREO, the program was first scaled back from having an actual spacecraft and tossed into limbo, and then proposed to instead just fly a few instruments on the ISS. Since then there's been more nothing, and the current administration is looking to cancel it altogether. CLARREO is what's called a zombie program, still kicking and sucking up funds but not really alive-- throughout this article there are references to speculative predictions, for example:
- "If launched at the earliest opportunity..."
- "The mission also might provide..."
- "Should it proceed, the mission will..."
- "CLARREO could make highly accurate decadal change observations..."
- "The team’s successful completion of this suggested CLARREO might proceed into Phase A..."
None of this is beneficial to informing the reader about CLARREO, and all of it appears to be nothing more than just promotion, trying to make this program sound more viable and alive than it clearly is since there isn't any current plan for these things to actually happen. Wikipedia is not the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets or Navigation where a "current status" article can basically get away with being a promotional press release. siafu (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. I doubt this article is the result of a deliberate effort to sound promotional. Generally speaking, I more often see articles where people add (in good faith) a snippet from news articles with said speculative predictions...over time, and without updates, these edits accumulate into badly written articles. (Hence why WP:NOTNEWS is important).
- That all being said- the article could use improvement, and if you see ways to improve it, by all means, dig in! The opening paragraph could certainly use an up-to-date re-write. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this article is an actual case of promotional editing. I've been rebuffed previously in trying to edit this article to reflect reality better because the major contributor to this article has been a member of the CLARREO team, and even used to use the username "CLARREOScience". Regardless, I'll see if I have some time this weekend to work on this. The problem is that there isn't very much useful information in the article as it is, so it's not so much a matter of paring it down and rewriting it as it is trying to find better information on CLARREO's actual status, products, etc. siafu (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)