Talk:Galileo project/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tercer (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is rather positive. The article covers everything about the mission, is gorgeously illustrated with photos taken by Galileo, and is sourced heavily from serious books. It does seem too large, though. At 98,294 characters of readable prose, it is clearly in conflict with WP:LENGTH. Perhaps using Template:Rp would get rid of many superfluous characters, and also make the references more manageable? Or maybe it simply has too much detail? Tercer (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work because neither the templates nor the references count as prose. The article doesn't technically conflict with WP:LENGTH because it is still under 100K, but what I was thinking of is splitting it in two, with one article on the spacecraft, and a second for the mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "technically" complying or not with WP:LENGTH, the numbers there are guidelines, not mathematical bounds. In any case, I think splitting the section "spacecraft" into its own subarticle is the optimal solution. The main topic is clearly the mission, and the technical details of the probe are of more specialised interest. Tercer (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the meanwhile, I've reviewed the pictures. Good stuff, copyright clear. I'm just bothered by the mission patch. It's right at the top, and it's hideous. I wonder if a photo of the original patch would qualify as free? It seems so, since the original patch is NASA work. There are plenty of photos of it online, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look at the references now. Very solid, actual published books, specialized press, and NASA itself. A problem is that several link to old websites, and are at risk of link rot. I've checked several and fixed three myself, but I'm not going to check all of them, there are literally hundreds of citations, somebody should go through with a bot. Tercer (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also ran a search for copyvios, it's clean. Tercer (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot is always a problem, but not nearly as bad as on sports articles, where sites have half lives of 90 days or less. I have run a checklinks check [4] and all links are live. Should any die they can be retrieved from archive. This has already been done for thirty of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that NASA gives you a soft redirect without a 404, so this tool can't catch all the problems. For example, Ref. 103 is dead but it claims its alive. Also, Ref. 90 gives me a 403, and for some reason this tool doesn't detect it. Tercer (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem. I have retrieved ref 103 from archive. Ref 90 works fine for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's a GDPR 403 then. I went through all NASA links to find more of these hidden 404s, and there were several. For press releases they were just moved to a different address, so I could find the new link. But refs 233, 235, and 237 are really dead, so you'll have to do your archive magic. Tercer (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All three restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the speed gained by the gravitational assists mentioned in section Galileo_(spacecraft)#Flybys in the sources. I find it weird because the introduction states that no speed should be gained in the second Earth encounter, by this section states that it gained 13,320 km/h. Also, it claims that the Venus encounter gave it 8,030 km/h, which is almost, but not exactly the same as the 2.2 km/s claimed in the section Galileo_(spacecraft)#Venus_encounter (which is in fact supported by the source). Tercer (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed these unsourced speeds. The former looks like an error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The speed gain does seem consistent with the animation in File:Animation_of_Galileo_trajectory.gif. I'd trust the book more, though. Tercer (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was suspiciously the same as the number of retries on the antenna, suggesting a possible confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reading the whole article. The prose is quite good, in the whole gigantic article there was a single unparseable sentence. It's direct, clear, no-nonsense. I couldn't find any WP:OR, neutrality is almost automatic given the subject, and the article is very comprehensive. It has everything one might want to know about Galileo and more. That's a problem, though. Not only the article becomes too large, but it's also full of unnecessary detail. Previously I had suggested splitting the "Spacecraft" section into its own article, as it has the most technical detail of narrow interest, but that's not enough; the whole article needs some careful pruning. Tercer (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been placed on hold, but no changes are proposed. Do you want me to split the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the changes I proposed; there's already an article on the Galileo probe. Perhaps that can be expanded to include also the material about the orbiter. The other change I proposed is to prune unnecessary detail from the rest of the article. Do you want me to point out everything that's too much detail? That's a massive amount of work. I can give you a few examples:

the Background section goes on and on about the Grand Tour, of which Galileo was not part.
in the Preparation section, the next-to-last paragraph describes some problems that were detected and fixed during testing. Seriously? Perhaps it would be noteworthy if no problems had been detected!
the last paragraph of the Preparation section describes the crew of the Shuttle mission that didn't happen. Who cares? Even the crew of the Shuttle mission that did happen is irrelevant! Of course, that is also detailed in the section Launch.
in the Reconsideration section, there's these sentences: Consideration was given to using the USAF's Titan IV launch system with its Centaur G Prime upper stage.[61] This was retained as a backup for a time, but in November 1988 the USAF informed NASA that it could not provide a Titan IV in time for the May 1991 launch opportunity, owing to the backlog of high priority Department of Defense missions.[62] Again, who cares? It didn't happen!
in the section Venus encounter, Unfortunately, three hours into the flyby, the tracking station at Goldstone had to be shut down due to high winds.. Who cares?
the whole section Galileo Optical Experiment. Maybe it's worth noting that it happened, but the precise details of the experimental setup?
the whole paragraph A final discovery occurred during the last two orbits of the mission. When the spacecraft passed the orbit of Amalthea, the star scanner detected unexpected flashes of light that were reflections from seven to nine moonlets. None of the individual moonlets were reliably sighted twice, so no orbits were determined. It is believed that they were most likely debris ejected from Amalthea and form a tenuous, and perhaps temporary, ring. and the following section Star Scanner.

I think that's enough to convince you that there's a lot of unnecessary detail in the article. There isn't much point in listing everything here, it's easier to just go through the article removing them. Tercer (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above is unnecessary, although maybe the bit about the grand tour could be cut back, and all are important to providing a "comprehensive article that neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and will not be entertained. However, I will make the split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Split complete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for a bit of civility and respect. I didn't invest several hours of work in this review, and some effort gathering specific examples of unnecessary detail, to be answered with a curt "will not be entertained" without even any argument. If that's all you have to say we should just end this review. Tercer (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here we go then with the arguments:

Preparation. The testing and checking was an important part of the project.
Deleted the crew details.
The possibility of alternative launch on Titan IV was important. The reader might well wonder why it was not used. Had it been, things might have turned out better.
Shutting down the DSN hampered collection of data on Venus. Data was lost. Added words to this effect.
Another editor thought the details of the Galileo Optical Experiment worth detailing, so there is no consensus to delete.
The star scanner was an important part of the mission. As was the discovery of moonlets around Amalthea. Another editor thought it important too, so there is no consensus to delete.

None of this is in the article any more due to the split. However, if you wish to close the review, that is fine too, and no hard feelings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Another editor thought the details are important" is a tautological argument, it will be true for anything in Wikipedia. In any case, the question here is not whether there is consensus for deleting this stuff, but whether it is unnecessary detail for the purposes of the Good Article criteria. About Venus: the article doesn't state that data collection was hampered; and it is doubtful that it would be, was data was just stored in the tape and transmitted later.

That is not correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the split; you moved the main article to Galileo program, and want the review now to be about the small remnant at Galileo (spacecraft)? Nope, I'm not doing that, Galileo program is what I reviewed. Also note that Galileo Probe should probably be merged into Galileo (spacecraft). Tercer (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you agreed with the article split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Tercer (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We're good then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to continue, it's okay to close the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's probably for the best. I'm rather exasperated by your attitude and don't think we'll make any progress. You can immediately renominate the article, and perhaps another reviewer will agree with your point of view. It's just frustrating to have done some much work for nothing. Tercer (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed