Talk:Voyager 1/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to take this on for a GA review. As one of the most significant spacecraft ever launched, it deserves at least a GA on Wikipedia. Jamesx1 2345 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Not sure about ref number 2. I think it is unnecessary in the intro anyway, so I'd remove it.
  • The refs need to be consistently formatted. The cite web template is used for about half, so I'd just use it for all of them.
  • "At a distance of about 125.12 AU" I'd update this once a month, with a ref to the NASA counter. It moves less than an AU a month, so that'll still be pretty accurate.
  • "previously unknown region of space" - it was known about before, but not studied. Less ambiguous.
  • "the probe was moving with a velocity" - velocity doesn't change much, but I think it is important to say relative to the Sun (but not moving away from the Sun, because that's not quite true either.)
  • At the end of the intro, I'd say that it is now slowly dying, but limping on as its power supply drops.
  • "In the 1960s ... shorter transit duration between planets" - this para needs at least one ref.
  • "planned as Mariner 11 of the" - bold here is, I believe, not necessary. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, I think it should be italics (as later on.)
  • "audio-visual disc" - you could be more specific about the technology - at present it sounds like a DVD. I don't think gold-plated is especially important here, so that would make it more concise.
  • "including works by Mozart, Blind Willie Johnson, and Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode"." - ref needed again.
  • "Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem (AACS)" - bold not necessary.
  • "instruments to study celestial objects" - bit vague - if there was a more specific list of objects, that would be useful
  • (see diagram) - show the diagram! I think there's room for another image there.
  • "and many fewer kilobits per second at larger distances." - pretty clumsy - perhaps "dropping as the probe recedes from the Earth."
  • "The length of time needed to send messages" - not really necessary - just say how long it is now. The formula is pretty self-explanatory.
  • Communication systems needs a few refs.
  • "three large" - are they that large?
  • "Hence there was a total of about 470 watts of electric power provided by the three RTGs." - integrate into previous sentence.
  • "(halving every 87.7 yrs)" - link halving to Half-life
  • For the table, move the see also table to the top. Using a {{!}}, you can get a pipe in the see also.
  • Launch and trajectory needs a few refs.
  • For the {{main}}, use a pipe (as above) to point to the Voyager exploration.
  • Per WP:Gallery, the gallery section needs to be trimmed. Nice photos, but adding little encyclopaedic value.
  • Encounter with Saturn has just one ref. At least three are needed, preferably more.
  • "(For the continuation of the Grand Tour, see the Uranus and Neptune sections of the article on Voyager 2.)" - change to but was continued by Voyager 2.
  • Heliopause needs a ref in the first para.
  • "This marks the point where the solar wind slows to subsonic speeds." - I wouldn't normally say this, but I think that should be removed on the grounds of the confusion it will cause - clicking the link will give a proper explanation.
  • "...evidence that Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock in December 2004." - ref again
  • The section with the bold headings needs, ideally, to be in chronological order. There are also some cleanup tags to be addressed.
  • In fiction needs to some citations.
  • The external links need to be cleaned up - for example, I'm not sure an iPhone app is appropriate.
 Done I have done most of your suggestions while some are still there. I will probably look deep into that and do it. By the way, thanks a lot for reviewing.Benison {'Talk with me'} 07:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


In short, a lot more references are needed. An article this size would often have twice as many, but that's a generalisation. Since a lot of stuff can be found on the NASA website, that should be reasonably doable. Since you're a new, young editor, (much like myself), and new to the GA process, I'll put it on hold to allow for improvement. This article has at present a good way to go, but there's nothing that can't be done within a week. Regards. Jamesx1 2345 21:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have done most of your suggestions while some are still there. I will probably look deep into that and do it. By the way, thanks a lot for reviewing.Benison {'Talk with me'} 07:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments[edit]

I think the lead should be rewritten - it gets into the technical parameters such as mass far too quickly. While it is important to include these details in the article, the first paragraph should state that it is a spacecraft, who operates it, when, and what its mission is, rather than coming straight in with masses, distances and speeds. I also noticed a few collapsible lists, which should not be used in article content, so I'd suggest these should be converted into a static format. The nested tables in the mission profile section also look a bit scrappy. --W. D. Graham 09:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits - there has indeed been progress. However, the Voyager 1#In fiction sections is still not referenced, not the table in Voyager 1#Future of the probe. Also, there have been some developments over the past week or so - adding them in would be useful. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for your further reviews. I have added the necessary references to the given points. Best of luck to Voyager 1!! Benison {'Talk with me'} 15:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see the lede include what the spacecraft is DOING now. Speed and distance are arguably important, but it has active instruments, so what is it doing? The table of active instruments lists status "active" "disabled" but NOWHERE in the article are those explained. What is the difference (if any) between active and "in use"? or 'disabled' and 'turned off' or 'broken'? As I commented on V2 talk page, it would be nice if the table has an "as of" column, so that we could see how current the information is. Also citation for each instruments to the most recent journal article referencing its most recent data would be excellent. (I went to the NASA site to look at their "data" and it was complete gibberish. No (obvious) data, let alone which instrument system was measuring it.) (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Second Review[edit]

There's been a good bit of changes, so I'm just going to start afresh. Jamesx12345 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  • "the spacecraft receives routine commands and transmits data back to the Deep Space Network." - "the spacecraft communicates with the Deep Space Network to receive routine commands and return data." might be clearer
  • "spacecraft is in extended mission" - "spacecraft is in an extended mission"
  • add bit about favourable alignment of planets to reasons for going ahead
  • quite a few line breaks - not all necessary (I think)
  • Valya Balkanska can be linked, and the song name should be removed so only the composer is given.
  • There is a lack of consistency with italics - I'm fairly sure it isn't italics after the first instance, but you can check the relevant part of the WP:MOS to be sure.
  • "mounted end to end on a boom" - "on a boom" is clearer
  • the images with "Launch and trajectory" are both, perhaps, unnecessary, one could be kept at the side. As it is, there are a lot of images in this article.
  • "at a distance of about 349,000 kilometers (217,000 mi) from the planet's center" - citation needed.
  • more italics needing fixed
  • "The most surprising discovery in the Jovian system was the existence of volcanic activity on the moon Io, which had not been observed either from the ground, or by Pioneer 10 or Pioneer 11." - cite needed - bit too colloquial as well
  • "Encounter with Saturn" - also undersourced.
  • ref 27 has a spelling error
  • "Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock in December 2004." - ref again
  • there's been some stuff in the news over the past few weeks, which is probably significant enough to include. Add a sentence or two, but source it straight from NASA.
  • "On March 8, 2011, Voyager ..." - this next bit is a bit abrupt - not great reading at present.
  • "On June 15, 2011, the distance to the interstellar medium was recalculated, which was then believed to be much less than previously thought. NASA believed that Voyager 1 may cross into the space between the stars sometime in the next year or so" - out of date.
  • "The close flyby of Saturn and Titan gave Voyager 1 a massive advantage with its extra gravity assist." - a ref for "massive" is needed here.
  • "In a 1975 episode of Space: 1999 entitled Voyager's Return, an Earth probe launched in 1985 named Voyager 1 threatens the inhabitants of Moonbase Alpha." - needs a ref.

A few refs are still needed, as is some up to date info. Significant improvements though, so I'm hopeful that you can pull it off. Good work. Jamesx12345 20:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have gone through the review and could find some of them are useful. I have done most of the instructions. Thanks again. Benison talk with me 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you check each one off with a  Done, as some still need to be done? I'll be happy to pass it once each of these issues has been addressed. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 DoneNow you may review it fully.. Thanks!! Benison talk with me 16:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid my concerns about referencing have yet to be fully addressed, but don't be discouraged, because you definitely improved the article over the review period. Add a few more refs, and some up to date info, and try it again, because it isn't too far away from GA status. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)