This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
A fact from Launch and commissioning of the James Webb Space Telescope appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 September 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other problems: - ALT0 is too wordy and ALT1 leaves some context to be desired. The latter should mention the amount of time and that the launch conditions were a factor.
Clear at 100px: - Quality is not good, especially at thumbnail size.
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Hook needs work. SounderBruce 23:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The picture is indeed of low quality (although I would argue that is less visible at 100px), but there are several alternatives on Flickr which aren't ported to Commons yet which might be suitable: [1], [2], [3], [4] or [5], all on the telescope's official Flickr account. As for the hook, how about
Basically just a shortened original hook. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: I am ok with the modified hook. Also if the image is not suitable we can go without it. The article has videos and animations and is quite interesting. Thanks for the review! Bruxton (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I was mistaken, the images are on Commons already. I was so bold as to change the selection in the article, so the low res one pictured above is gone. I'd instead go with either of these two:
I also prefer the first of the new images, as it is much clearer than the zoomed-out shot. SounderBruce 22:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce and @LordPeterII: I can live with it, and I have crossed off the other. Please review and tick if either of you can when time permits. Bruxton (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT3. I'm not perfectly happy with it because we don't know for sure that it will stay in place for 10 more years – other factors might reduce that time. But I think it's pretty clear that this is about fuel only, and everything, even the original planned duration, is an estimate. And we have "allows", which doesn't imply a guarantee. And for a more detailled explanation, you can, after all, read the article ^^
Actual review already done by SounderBruce. I have also exchanged the nomination picture to the one preferred by both SounderBruce and Bruxton, and approving that as well, if it isn't considered approved already. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: There are two places that are missing citations, which I have marked with citation needed tags. Can you replace the cn tags with a reference? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, another thing I missed... sorry. But it seems to have been fixed now, @Z1720. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce it was not much and quickly repaired. Thanks for the review! We have them cited now @Z1720:Bruxton (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are resolved, so readding tick per the above review. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
- ALT0 is too wordy and ALT1 leaves some context to be desired. The latter should mention the amount of time and that the launch conditions were a factor.
Hook needs work. SounderBruce 23:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Approving ALT3. I'm not perfectly happy with it because we don't know for sure that it will stay in place for 10 more years – other factors might reduce that time. But I think it's pretty clear that this is about fuel only, and everything, even the original planned duration, is an estimate. And we have "allows", which doesn't imply a guarantee. And for a more detailled explanation, you can, after all, read the article ^^
@Bruxton: There are two places that are missing citations, which I have marked with citation needed tags. Can you replace the cn tags with a reference? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
