Talk:Mariner 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article.

Review

Lead section/infobox

Link flyby (in the infobox); magnetic field; charged particle; Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 12.

Done.

the American Mariner program - American is redundant here.

Revised differently.

Add a comma after after takeoff.

Done, but unnecessary.

1 Background

(see Hohmann Transfer Orbit) - this link would be imo better if it was incorporated into the text, or included in a separate note.

Fixed

Amend nineteen to ‘19’ (see MOS:NUMERAL).

Fixed

Amend The second to ‘The second opportunity’ to improve the prose.

Fixed

long before it reached Venus – is vague. Is a specific time period known?

Added date.

Link superpower; bleeding edge of possibility (Bleeding edge technology); U.S. Air Force; Space Technology Laboratory (TRW Inc.); launch window; transmitting (Transmitter).

Fixed.

Delete (The Atlas Able probe concept was repurposed as the unsuccessful Pioneer Atlas Moon probes.) - off topic.

Because I describe the Atlas-Able Venus probe early on, I want to close the loop. That's why it's a parenthetical.

Amend The Soviets to ‘The Soviet Union’ (minor point).

Ok

In the caption: Heliocentric is redundant; link trajectory and ecliptic plane; the caption has no full stop.

This amuses me -- it's a literal transcription of the original NASA caption. Fixed.

For the summer 1962 opportunity – it needs to be clearer to readers what opportunity is being referred to here.

So, the previous paragraph, I say "The first such opportunity..." followed by "the second opportunity..." -- should I be changing those, too? I'm not sure the reader will have forgotten what was being discussed in the span of five sentences.

Pioneer 5 and Venera 1 should be in italics.

They should not.

July 1960 – ‘in July 1960’?

Style choice. It's allowable. But I'll change it anyway.

via the yet – ‘using the yet’?

Sure.

11 month is hyphenated.

Fixed.

(for Ranger) – it’s not clear what this means.

Clarified

were built: - has a semi-colon, not a colon (see MOS:SEMICOLON).

Both can work, but I think a colon is indicated (see MOS:COLON). It's a sentence fragment that "introduces something which demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before, or is a list of items that has just been introduced."

2 A spacecraft for Venus

Link atmosphere (amended to ‘atmosphere of Venus’); water vapor; radar'; magnetometer.

Done.

The title for this section is odd-sounding – why not simply something like 'Spacecraft'?

I'm explaining this is a spacecraft custom-made for this particular task. It's also engaging.

required extensive customization – I’m unclear about what had to be customized.

Deleted.

much about Venus was still unknown is redundant, as the following text explains this clearly.

Fixed.

the impenetrable cloud layer – this is no longer the case, and the text needs to be clear on this point.

Fixed.

Link 'runaway greenhouse effect', not greenhouse effect'.
had a very slow rotation – needs to be edited to make it less vague, so it is clear what rotation is being referred to, and by how much.

Fixed. It's still vague, but that's how it was characterized in the sources of the day. Often simply "Very slow (tidally locked?)" or the like.

the Sun or the sun? You need to be consistent.

Fixed.

Beyond that, little was known is redundant.

Fixed.

The tremendous amount – is vague, a specific percentage and mass is more encyclopaedic.

Fixed.

Convert 600° K (see Template:Convert).

Fixed.

Readers may be unclear what Several of Mariner's experiments were serviceable means.

Fixed.

Micrometeoroid concentrations – of what?

... of micrometeroids.

The launch of a long-distance mission comparatively close to the sun presented engineering challenges. This is vague, and rather obvious. Is it needed?

I guess not.

transmit data - 'transmit data back to Earth?'

Fixed.

solar radiation twice that encountered in Earth orbit needs to be copy edited so that it makes more sense.

Fixed.

6 References

Ref 1 (James) - a url is available (https://archive.org/details/newtreasuryofsci0000shap_m8g3)

This source is under copyright. I could host a copy of it on my website. Wouldn't make it appropriate to link. :)

Ref 3 (STL1959), Ref 4 (STL1960) and Ref 5 (Theil) - the abbreviations needs to be replaced (Space Technology Laboratories).

Fixed.

Ref 7 (JPL) - replace the abbreviation (Jet Propulsion Laboratory).

Fixed.

Ref 8 (Avi.12Jun1961) - use https://archive.org/details/Aviation_Week_1961-06-12, which doesn't need a 'subscription required' template.

Copyrighted.

Ref 9 (Avi.5Feb1962) - use https://archive.org/details/Aviation_Week_1962-02-05, which doesn't need a 'subscription required' template.

Copyrighted.

Ref 12 (Avi.30Jul1962) - use https://archive.org/details/Aviation_Week_1962-07-30, which doesn't need a 'subscription required' template.

Copyrighted.

Ref 13 (Fishman) - looks self-published. What makes you think it is reliable?

I have changed the citation to a Vice article, which is probably where Fishman got his material in the first place.

Ref 14 (Avi.6Aug1962) - use https://archive.org/details/Aviation_Week_1962-08-06, which doesn't need a 'subscription required' template.

Copyrighted.

Too much work needs to be done

Although I have not reviewed sections 2.1 to 4 yet, nor checked the references to see that they verify the text, I am stopping here. The article clearly needs a lot of work done to it before it can be promoted. Generally speaking, it looks like amongst other things the prose and the links need attention. I'm failing the article at this point; another reviewer will expect the above points to be addressed before the article is re-nominated. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the above changes and am working on the rest of the article in the spirit you have suggested. --Neopeius (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]